177 Ill. 2d 185 - Talarico v. Dunlap’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 197 Ill. 2d 381 - Nowak v. St. Rita High School (2001), 193 Ill. 2d 378 - American Family Mutual Insurance v. Savickas (2000)
31 federal appellate · 89 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 North Carolina v. Alford · 154 Ill. 2d 90 - Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · 101 Ill. 2d 246 - Housing Authority for La Salle County v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n · 167 Ill. 2d 288 - Herzog v. Lexington Township · 78 Ill. 2d 1 - Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Pollution Control 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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” Talarico v. Dunlap. 177 Ill.2d 185, 226 Ill.Dec. 222 , 685 N.E.2d 325, 328 (1997). All of these seem to be present. It is, however,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In deciding whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable in a particular situation, a court must balance the need to limit litigation against the right of a fair adversary proceeding in which a party may fully present his case. In determining whether a party has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue in a prior action, those elements which comprise the “practical realities of litigation” must be examined. In some circumstances, the absence of an incentive to vigorously litigate in the former proceeding is relevant in the application of collateral estoppel. There must have been the incentive and opportunity to litigate, so that a failure to litigate the issue is in fact a concession on that issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless it is clear that no unfairness results to the party being estopped.”
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.