215 Ill. 2d 78 - Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 227 Ill. 2d 147 - Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2007), 238 Ill. 2d 215 - Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority (2010)
12 federal appellate · 64 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 111 Ill. 2d 229 - Purtill v. Hess · 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · 32 Ill. 2d 612 - Suvada v. White Motor Co. · 74 Ill. 2d 203 - Hunt v. Blasius · 76 Ill. 2d 154 - Kerns v. Engelke
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o establish a negligence claim for a defective design of a product, a plaintiff must prove that either (1) the defendant deviated from the standard of care that other manufacturers in the industry followed at the time the product was designed, or (2) that the defendant knew or should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care, that the product was unreasonably dangerous and defendant failed to warn of its dangerous propensity-”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he risk is unreasonable and the act is negligent if the risk is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or of the particular manner in which it is done.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product: (a) contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product: (b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe; (c) is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe." Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, at 14 (1998).”
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.