174 Ill. App. 3d 692 - Koch v. Spalding’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2012
17 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Marino v. United States · Preiser v. Department of Transportation · Century Brass Products, Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers · 112 Ill. 2d 428 - Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. · Yorke v. National Labor Relations Board
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the trial court’s formulation of the relevant legal questions is not controlling becomes evident when one considers that the basic purpose of a Rule 308 appeal is not to review the trial court’s reasoning, but to test the propriety of the trial court’s decision in granting or refusing the requested interlocutory relief (cf. Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (1985), 134 Ill. App. 3d 71, 73-74 , 479 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 , aff'd (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 428 , 493 N.E.2d 1045 , cert. denied (1986), 479 U.S. 949 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 384 , 107 S. Ct. 434 ), where immediate resolution of that issue may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. If the trial court’s formulation were binding, a situation might result where the trial court’s order would have to be reversed on interlocutory appeal simply because its analysis of the case was defective even though the result it reached would ultimately have to be sustained as correct on appeal following entry of final judgment. In such a situation, the interlocutory appeal, rather than speeding resolution of the case, would have operated simply to protract it, and to have protracted it unnecessarily. The approach adopted by the majority here exemplifies this problem. By focusing on the issues as framed by the circuit court, rather than examining the correctness of the order itself, the majority leaves unresolved the question of the adequacy of the consideration supporting the agreement signed by plaintiff. If, on reman”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.