Hansen v. Ruby Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 181 Ill. 2d 395 - In Re Estate of Rennick (1998), 131 Ill. 2d 196 - Van's Material Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989)
79 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 83 Ill. 2d 388 - Kolakowski v. Voris · 92 Ill. App. 3d 813 - Kimbrough v. Jewel Companies, Inc. · 119 Ill. App. 3d 195 - National Tea Co. v. Commerce & Industry Insurance · 106 Ill. App. 3d 988 - Joseph v. Lake Michigan Mortgage Co. · 105 Ill. App. 3d 521 - Stringer v. Zacheis
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of a party about a concrete fact within that party's peculiar knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Hansen stated in his discovery deposition that he had been employed by the United States Postal Service for 12 years, but had worked at the branch where he was injured for only several months. He had previously served with that agency at a nearby office, where he also worked on the loading dock. On the day of the accident, after Hansen noticed a patron he knew, he picked up the patron’s mail and walked over toward the edge of the loading dock to hand it to him. Although Hansen had performed this act many times before without incident, on this occasion he fell off the loading dock. At the taking of his deposition, Mr. Hansen described in detail the rubber bumper strips on which he claimed to have tripped; apparently their purpose was to prevent hand trucks from rolling off the loading dock. When shown pictures of the dock, however, Hansen was unable to identify the rubber bumpers, explaining that they were beyond the portion of the dock that appeared in the photographs. Nevertheless, Hansen did identify in the photographs certain metal plates which were lowered electrically into trucks to aid loading, and a second set of rubber bumpers on the outside edge of the loading dock, which trucks backed into. Hansen repeatedly stated that the cause of his fall was the rubber bumpers which acted as a stop for the hand trucks. When asked if he could have tripped over the metal plates on the dock and not over the rubber strips, Hansen replied: ‘Well, to be truthful, all I know is I caug”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“frequently stated purpose of the doctrine of judicial admissions is to eliminate the temptation to commit perjury”
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.