208 Ill. App. 3d 813 - Estes v. Maddrell’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 3 Ill. 2d 291 - Rizzo v. Rizzo · 94 Ill. App. 2d 290 - Heyen v. Willis · 76 Ill. App. 3d 306 - Hillblom v. Ivancsits · 165 Ill. App. 3d 417 - Davis v. Kurtz · 58 Ill. App. 3d 837 - Wakefield v. Kern
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The intent of the legislature in enacting this law was to encourage owners of livestock to restrain their animals so as to prevent accidents. Those livestock owners that allow their animals to roam free will be liable to others for the damage the animals cause. Those that are not aware that their animals are running free and can demonstrate that they used reasonable control in restraining their animals will not be held liable.” (Emphasis in original.) Estes, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 817 , 566 N.E.2d at 919 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[A]n owner or keeper of livestock will not be held liable if he meets a two-part test: (1) if he is able to establish that he used reasonable care in restraining his livestock; and (2) that he did not have knowledge that the animal was running at large.” Estes, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 816 , 566 N.E.2d at 918 .”
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.