22 Ill. 2d 23 - Cunningham v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 140 state decisions

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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The historical background of the act seems to disclaim any notion that it was intended to complement a common-law remedy against the tavern owners and operators. We would be delving in judicial metaphysics if we were to say that the legislature intended to provide a remedy in addition to a common-law remedy which existed but had not as yet been declared by the courts. “ ” The inescapable conclusion is that the legislature did not intend the act to be complementary to a common-law right it knew nothing about, but, on the contrary, intended to create a remedy in an area where it believed none existed.” 22 Ill. 2d 23, 28-29 , 174 N.E.2d 153, 156 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 109 Ill. App. 3d 109 - Gora v. 7-11 FOOD STORES · 113 Ill. App. 3d 650 - Coulter v. Swearingen

2. ““The plaintiffs’ argument has some merit, and if no more were involved than laying down a new rule of liability it would warrant more serious consideration. But the lack of common-law precedent for such liability motivated our legislature, as well as the legislatures in 21 other States, to create such liability. [Citation.] The remedy we are asked to recognize would, except as to recoverable damages, be almost coincidental with the remedy provided in section 14. Section 19 of article II of the constitution does not require the courts to recognize a remedy when the legislature has already provided such remedy even though the statutory remedy be limited as to recoverable damages. [Citation.] We hold that section 14 of article VI of the Liquor Control Act provides the only remedy against tavern operators and owners of tavern premises for injuries to person, property or means of support by an intoxicated person or in consequence of intoxication.” ( 22 Ill. 2d 23, 30-31 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 109 Ill. App. 3d 109 - Gora v. 7-11 FOOD STORES · 2016 IL App (1st) 150128 - Bogenberger v. PI KAPPA ALPHA Corporation, Inc.

3. “* * * no remedy for the mere sale of alcoholic liquor to the ordinary man, either on the theory that it was a direct wrong or on the ground that it was negligence, which imposes a legal liability on the seller for damages resulting from intoxication. (Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231 ; Howlett v. Doglio, 402 Ill. 311 ; Cole v. Rush 45 Cal. 2d 345 ; Seibel v. Leach, 233 Wis. 66 ; Scott v. Greenville Pharmacy, 212 A.C. 485; Anderson v. Diaz, 77 Ark. 606 , State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249 ; Cowman v. Hansen, 250 Iowa 358 .) They point out that the reason generally given for the rule is that the drinking, not the selling, is the proximate cause of the intoxication. (See, e.g., Cole v. Rush, 45 Cal. 2d 345 ; Joyce v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249 .)” Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 23, 29-30 , 174 N.E.2d 153, 157 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 96 Ill. App. 3d 596 - Miller v. Moran