18 Ill. 2d 572 - Mensik v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

cited by 42 later decisions

states following

August 1996

most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably Maiter v. Chicago Board of Education (1980), 84 Ill. 2d 102 - Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Lenckos (1981)

8 federal appellate · 28 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 The People v. Deatherage · 3 Ill. 2d 218 - People v. Illinois Toll Highway Commission · Evans v. Superior Court · Fletcher v. Tuttle · Weininger v. Metropolitan Fire Insurance

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

““Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted as of right to intervene in an action * * * when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant will or may be bound by a judgment, decree or order in the action * * *.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 29 Ill. App. 3d 539 - Wheeling Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect · 2 Ill. App. 3d 17 - People Ex Rel. Baylor v. BELL MUTUAL
“that if the legislature did not accord the right to obtain judicial review and control of the [Commissioner's] conduct the Savings and Loan Act would be constitutionally suspect. [Citations.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 105 Ill. 2d 166 - Telegraph Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Schilling
“would or might be bound by the judgment which would affect them and . . . [because] there was no one in the case directly representing their interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Tcherepnin v. Franz

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.