144 Ill. 2d 451 - In Re Doyle’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 226 Ill. 2d 277 - Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc. (2007), 334 Ill. App. 3d 259 - Guerrant v. Roth (2002)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions
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
Relies on 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · 81 Ill. 2d 151 - Kokinis v. Kotrich · 42 Ill. 2d 362 - Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority · 103 Ill. 2d 290 - Lenzi v. Morkin · 132 Ill. 2d 507 - In Re Gerard
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.” 134 Ill. 2d R. 1.5.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““8. It is my opinion that Elizabeth L. Hubbard deviated from the applicable standards of professional responsibility, and consequently the applicable standard of care for an attorney, because she billed and collected from Constance C. Bauer over $12,000.00 on a highly conjectural claim and she did not itemize the purpose or amount of the expenditures. The bases [sic] of this opinion is that without knowing the purposes or amounts of expenditures I am left with a definite and firm conviction that billing and collecting over $12,000.00 for a highly conjectural claim in which not a good result was obtained is not reasonable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bauer v. Hubbard““The Hearing Board’s decision to allow Doyle’s motion for directed finding should not be reversed by this court unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Kokinis, 81 Ill. 2d at 154 .) For the reasons set forth earlier in this opinion, we find the Hearing Board’s decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Doyle (1991), 144 Ill. 2d 451, 470 , 581 N.E.2d 669, 677 .”
1 later decision 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.