Schulte v. Schleeper’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1981
17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSchulte v. Menke
Relationships
Relies on Freese v. Tripp · Shugart v. Egan · Schroder v. Crawford · Schmidt v. Mitchell · Hullinger v. Worrell
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The question, what was the proximate cause of an injury, is one for the jury where an issue is formed and a trial had by a jury and there is any evidence tending to show that the wrong complained of was the proximate cause of an injury. (Meyer v. Butterbrodt, 146 Ill. 131 .) But where the question is presented by a demurrer to the declaration it is one of law and was so treated by us in the case of Hullinger v. Worrell, 83 Ill. 220 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Dram-shop act is highly penal in its character. It provides remedies unknown to the common law, and we have invariably held that it should be strictly construed, and that a plaintiff must bring himself clearly within its terms.””
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.