166 Ill. 2d 507 - Bogseth v. Emanuel’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 226 Ill. 2d 515 - Heastie v. Roberts (2007), 234 Ill. 2d 266 - Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2009)
63 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 103 Ill. 2d 266 - In Re Marriage of Logston · 119 Ill. 2d 344 - Elg v. Whittington · 204 Ill. App. 3d 527 - Guertin v. Guertin · Ohio Millers Mutual Insurance v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Illinois Automobile Club · 213 Ill. App. 3d 998 - Jacobs v. Abbott Laboratories
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]hether a ruling will be applied prospectively will depend upon whether the decision to be applied nonretroactively establishes a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. If either of these criteria is met, the question of prospective or retroactive application will be answered by considering whether, given the purpose and prior history of the rule, its operation will be retarded or promoted by prospective or retroactive application and whether prospective application is mandated by a balance of equities.” Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill. 2d 507, 515 , 655 N.E.2d 888, 892 (1995).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legislative history of section 2 — 402 indicates that its purpose was to provide plaintiffs attorneys with a means of filing medical malpractice suits without naming everyone in sight as a defendant. It was believed that the label of ‘defendant’ in a medical malpractice suit contributed to the spiraling cost of medical malpractice insurance.” Clark v. Brokaw Hospital, 126 Ill. App. 3d 779, 783 , 467 N.E.2d 652, 655 (1984).”
2 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.