21 Ill. App. 3d 496 - Ballard v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably 103 Ill. App. 3d 335 - Boylan v. Martindale (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 1081 - Parrish v. Donahue (1982)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 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 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · 31 Ill. 2d 69 - Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp. · 2 Ill. 2d 74 - Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. · Lasko v. Meier · 16 Ill. App. 3d 89 - Goldstein v. Hertz Corp.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence of intoxication is admissible in a personal injury-action as tending to show the negligence of one of the parties. [Citation.] *** However, drinking, standing alone, cannot be equated with intoxication, nor can the use of alcoholic liquor, standing alone, characterize a person as intoxicated. [Citation.] Accordingly, questions cannot be asked which intimate to the jury that a party was intoxicated at the time of the accident unless there is supporting evidence [citation]; in the absence of supporting evidence, testimony concerning the drinking of intoxicants should be stricken [citation], and under certain circumstances, may constitute reversible error notwithstanding a sustained objection. [Citation.]” (Ballard v. Jones (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 496, 501 , 316 N.E.2d 281, 286 , appeal denied (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 604 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the rule of the tendered instruction, a party is not bound to introduce every witness who might know something about the matter at issue at the risk of being burdened with an unfavorable inference because of his failure to do so. (See People v. Moore, 52 Ill.App.2d 27 , 201 N.E.2d 619 ; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, sec. 187.) When there are multiple occurrence witnesses, (not all of whom testify), the granting of this instruction should be within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Hildebrand v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 41 Ill.App.2d 217 , 190 N.E.2d 630 . Three of the six passengers of the Ballard vehicle testified to the occurrence, in addition to an independent occurrence witness who was brought in, at plaintiff’s expense, from California. Therefore, the testimony of both plaintiff and her husband was corroborated. Furthermore, although no competent explanation was given for the unavailability of the remaining three, they were out-of-state residents.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence of intoxication is admissible in a personal injury action as tending to show the negligence of one of the parties. (South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Dufresne, 200 Ill. 456 , 65 N.E. 1075 .) . . . . However, drinking, standing alone, cannot be equated with intoxication, nor can the use of alcoholic liquor, standing alone, characterize a person as intoxicated. (Shore v. Turman, 63 Ill.App.2d 315 , 210 N.E.2d 232 .) Accordingly, questions cannot be asked which intimate to the jury that a party was intoxicated at the time of the accident unless there is supporting evidence (Clarke v. Rochford, 79 Ill.App.2d 336 , 224 N.E.2d 679 .); in the absence of supporting evidence, testimony concerning the drinking of intoxicants should be stricken (Warp v. Whitmore, 123 Ill.App.2d 157 , 260 N.E.2d 45 .), and under certain circumstances, may constitute reversible error notwithstanding a sustained objection.” 316 N.E.2d at 286 .”
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.