213 Ill. 2d 433 - Young v. Bryco Arms’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 213 Ill. 2d 351 - City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (2004), 224 Ill. 2d 274 - Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc. (2007)
18 federal appellate · 99 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on 174 Ill. 2d 77 - Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc. · Merlo v. Public Service Co. · 152 Ill. 2d 432 - Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority · 213 Ill. 2d 351 - City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. · 198 Ill. 2d 541 - Simmons v. Garces
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen multiple factors may have combined to cause the injury, [the Court must] consider whether the defendant's conduct was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ultimately, our conclusion that the doctrine of public nuisance does not encompass the novel claim made by plaintiffs is a public policy determination. See W Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 41, at 264 (5th ed. 1984) (proximate cause is merely a boundary used to set liability for the consequences of any act and is based upon ‘some social idea of justice or policy’). We note that despite the existence of numerous statutes declaring various practices and conditions to constitute public nuisances, we have no indication from the legislature that it would be inclined to impose public nuisance liability for the manufacture and sale of a product that may be possessed legally by some persons, in some parts of the state. We are reluctant to interfere in the lawmaking process in the manner suggested by plaintiffs, especially when the product at issue is already so heavily regulated by both the state and federal governments. We, therefore, conclude that there are strong public policy reasons to defer to the legislature in the matter of regulating the manufacture, distribution, and sale of firearms.” Young, 213 Ill. 2d at 455-56 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[LJegal cause[ ] is established only if the defendant’s conduct is ‘ “so closely tied to the plaintiffs injury that he should be held legally responsible for it.” ’ [Citations.] The question is one of policy — How far should a defendant’s legal responsibility extend for conduct that did, in fact, cause the harm? [Citation.] See W Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 41, at 264 (5th ed. 1984) (‘As a practical matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Some boundary must be set to liability for the consequences of any act, upon the basis of some social idea of justice or policy’). The proper inquiry regarding legal cause involves an assessment of foreseeability, in which we ask whether the injury is of a type that a reasonable person would see as a likely result of his conduct. [Citation.]” Beretta, 213 Ill. 2d at 395 .”
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.