250 Ill. App. 3d 1030 - Kellner v. Bartman’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 316 Ill. App. 3d 581 - Neppl v. Murphy (2000), 352 Ill. App. 3d 456 - Fleet Business Credit, LLC v. Enterasys Networks, Inc. (2004)
31 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 · 61 Ill. 2d 119 - Baker v. Loves Park Savings & Loan Ass'n · 234 Ill. App. 3d 340 - University of Illinois v. Continental Casualty Co. · Hayes v. O'Brien · 106 Ill. App. 3d 988 - Joseph v. Lake Michigan Mortgage Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Merely because the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment alleging that no genuine issue of material fact existed does not obligate the trial court to grant summary judgment. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Washburn (1989), 183 Ill. App. 3d 978, 981 , 539 N.E.2d 1278, 1280 , rev’d on other grounds (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 312 , 561 N.E.2d 29 . 'The purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact (Purtill v. Hess (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240 ), and summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2—1005(c)). Although summary judgment is an expeditious method of disposing of a lawsuit, it should only be allowed when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. (Purtill, 111 Ill. 2d at 240 .)’ (Calvin v. Hobart Brothers (1993), 156 Ill. 2d 166, 169-70 .) On appeal, the reviewing court’s role is to consider anew the facts and law relating to the case and determine whether the trial court was correct in finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed, and if none exists, whether the judgment was correctly entered as a matter of law. University of Illinois v. Continental Casualty Co. (1992), 234 Ill. App. 3d 340, 343 , 599 N.E.2d 1338, 1341 .” Kellner v. Bartman”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A right of first refusal is not an option in that the holder of the right cannot force the sale of the property at a stipulated price. [Citation.] Instead, the right does not arise until the grantor notifies the holder of a desire to sell or until offering or contracting to sell to a third party without first giving the holder of the right of first refusal the opportunity to buy. [Citations.] Oftentimes a right of first refusal is a right to elect to take specified property at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as are contained in a good-faith offer to purchase made by a third party [Citations.]” Kellner, 250 Ill. App. 3d at 1034-35 , 620 N.E.2d at 610 .”
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.