239 Ill. App. 3d 304 - Guy v. Steurer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2024
20 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 · 151 Ill. 2d 445 - Maple v. Gustafson · 141 Ill. 2d 204 - People v. Holmes · 16 Ill. 2d 577 - Pennington v. McLean · 115 Ill. App. 3d 762 - Harris v. Day
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any person or property. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection * * * or when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of * * * highway conditions. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he motorist on the preferential road had the right to expect that the vehicle approaching on the secondary road controlled by a stop sign would obey the stop sign and yield the right-of-way. When the motorist drove into the path of the preferential driver, the circumstances afforded no opportunity to avoid the collision.” Guy, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 309 , 606 N.E.2d at 856 (citing Salo v. Singhurse, 181 Ill. App. 3d 641, 643 , 537 N.E.2d 339, 341 (1989), First National Bank of Geneva v. Douell, 161 Ill. App. 3d 158, 161-62 , 514 N.E.2d 238, 240 (1987), Romero v. Ciskowski, 137 Ill. App. 3d 529, 534 , 484 N.E.2d 1150, 1154 (1985), and Marsh v. McNeill, 136 Ill. App. 3d 616, 619-20 , 483 N.E.2d 595, 597-98 (1985)).”
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.