Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Ill. 2d 425 - Tully v. State

143 Ill. 2d 425 - Tully v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
2
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 156 Ill. 2d 288 - McDunn v. Williams (1993), 181 Ill. 2d 41 - People v. Hawkins (1998)

4 federal appellate · 77 state decisions

3701991200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Zelazny v. Lyng · 8 Ill. 2d 494 - McCartney v. McCartney · 121 Ill. 2d 470 - People Ex Rel. Daley v. Strayhorn · 76 Ill. 2d 385 - Thurston v. State Board of Elections · 163 Ill. App. 3d 796 - Rexroat v. Abatte

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “" Laches is an equitable doctrine which precludes the assertion of a claim by a litigant whose unreasonable delay in raising that claim has prejudiced the opposing party." ( Tully v. State of Illinois (1991), 143 Ill.2d 425, 432 , 158 Ill.Dec. 546, 549 , 574 N.E.2d 659, 662 .) Accordingly, two elements are necessary for a finding of laches: (1) lack of diligence by the party asserting the claim; and (2) prejudice to the opposing party caused by the delay. Tully, 143 Ill.2d at 432 , 158 Ill.Dec. at 549 , 574 N.E.2d at 662 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.