184 Ill. App. 3d 832 - Williams v. Bolsten’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 105 Ill. 2d 486 - Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu · 73 Ill. 2d 113 - Towns v. Yellow Cab Co. · 153 Ill. App. 3d 605 - Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of St. Louis · 118 Ill. App. 3d 669 - Fountas v. Breed · 132 Ill. App. 2d 402 - Hansel v. Chicago Transit Authority
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Hansel, the defendant-agent was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 103(b) for plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining service of process. In affirming the dismissal *** the appellate court noted, ‘Dismissal [of the agent] was for failure to comply with the rules of the court and does not affect plaintiff’s right of action against the [principal].’ (Hansel, 132 Ill. App. 2d at 409 , 270 N.E.2d at 557 .) Plaintiffs in the present case claim the quoted language from Hansel is authority for this court to find that a Rule 103(b) dismissal of a principal does not bar the same action against the agent. The court in Hansel, however, did not consider the application of Rule 273 to a Rule 103(b) dismissal with prejudice. The quoted statement from Hansel appears inconsistent ■with the supreme court’s subsequent holding in Towns ***.” Williams, 184 Ill. App. 3d at 835-36 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The order of November 14, 1990 is hereby amended to read as follows: The Complaint of Plaintiffs, Ted Brady and Brian Brock, against Defendant Richard Joos, is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Supreme Court [R]ule 103(b); this order shall not be interpreted as an adjudication on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim raised in their defense against Defendant, Richard Joos, but shall be interpreted as an adjudication on the merits of defendants’ 103(b) claim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Unless the order of dismissal or a statute of this State Otherwise specifies, an involuntary dismissal of an action, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join an indispensable party, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” (134 Ill. 2d R. 273.)”
1 later decision 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.