164 Ill. App. 3d 475 - Bloom v. Guth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 state decisions

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While a medical review panel authorized to make conclusions of law has been found to improperly exercise a judicial function ( Wright v. Central Du Page Hospital Association (1976), 63 Ill.2d 313, 322 , 347 N.E.2d 736 ), application of section 2-622 does not involve interpretations of law. This provision merely requires the reviewing of facts by a health professional `knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action and who practices in the same specialty as the defendant if the defendant is a specialist' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-622(a)(1)). There is no infringement upon the judicial function of applying the law seen in section 2-622, as it requires only a determination of fact by an expert in the medical field." ( Bloom, 164 Ill.App.3d at 479 , 115 Ill.Dec. at 471, 517 N.E.2d at 1157 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 209 Ill. App. 3d 30 - Garland v. Kauten

2. ““The standard for determining plaintiff’s due process and equal protection objections is the rational-basis test. If the legislation bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, then it does not violate a person’s right to due process and equal protection. (Bernier v. Burris (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 219, 228-29 , 497 N.E.2d 763 .) The purpose of section 2 — 622 is to eliminate frivolous lawsuits at the pleading stage (Lyon v. Hasbro Industries, Inc. (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 649, 655 , 509 N.E.2d 702 ), which we find to be a legitimate governmental purpose which section 2 — 622 is rationally related to achieving.” ( 164 Ill. App. 3d at 478 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 174 Ill. App. 3d 649 - Sakovich v. Dodt

3. ““ * * * We conclude that the stated constitutional rights have not been infringed upon by the pleading requirement in issue, which establishes a procedure for eliminating frivolous cases from the court dockets. In our view, there is no infringement of the constitution because the right to maintain a bona fide medical malpractice action is not curtailed by section 2-622, which merely establishes a reasonable procedure designed to summarily dispose of meritless cases.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 64 Ohio App. 3d 296 - Hodge v. Cheek