151 Ill. 2d 445 - Maple v. Gustafson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 606 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 620 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 204 Ill. 2d 1 - Snelson v. Kamm (2003), 188 Ill. 2d 102 - McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
4 federal appellate · 606 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 · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · 5 Ill. 2d 614 - Kahn v. James Burton Co. · 64 Ill. 2d 303 - Mizowek v. De Franco · 141 Ill. 2d 204 - People v. Holmes
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 620 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should not usurp the function of the jury and substitute its judgment on questions of fact fairly submitted, tried, and determined from the evidence which did not greatly preponderate either way.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the findings of the jury are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"An initial step in analyzing the issue before us is to determine the authority of the jury, trial court, and appellate court, and their relationship to one another. Unquestionably, it is the province of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, and to decide what weight should be given to the witnesses’ testimony. [Citation.] A trial court cannot reweigh the evidence and set aside a verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions, or because the court feels that other results are more reasonable. [Citations.] Likewise, the appellate court should not usurp the function of the jury and substitute its judgment on questions of fact fairly submitted, tried, and determined from the evidence which did not greatly preponderate either way.” Maple v. Gustafson (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 445, 452-53 , 603 N.E.2d 508, 511-12 .”
7 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.