198 Ill. App. 3d 854 - Hill v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 131 Ill. 2d 145 - HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc. · 119 Ill. 2d 542 - Harris v. Walker · 57 Ill. 2d 398 - Janes v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · 107 Ill. App. 3d 373 - Kupianen v. Graham · 171 Ill. App. 3d 1012 - Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon reaching the summary judgment stage of the proceedings, the court has moved from an examination of the sufficiency of the pleadings, through the discovery stage, to a determination of whether there are material issues of fact to advance to a full trial. [Citation.] Presumptively, at the time of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the parties are aware of the significant facts and law which apply to the case. The hearing on the motion is an important, potentially dispositive stage of the proceeding.” Hill, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 858 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the present case, the plaintiff is proposing to make significant changes to the pleadings after summary judgment has been granted. The plaintiff could have anticipated these amendments far earlier in the course of the litigation. As the plaintiff has offered no justification for failing to propose her alternative theories at a more appropriate stage of the proceedings, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend.” Hill, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 858-59 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Wjhether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading [citation]; whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment [citations]; the timeliness of the proposed amendment [citation]; and whether previous opportunities to amend the pleadings could be identified.” Kupianen, 107 Ill. App. 3d at 377 .”
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.