Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 Ill. App. 3d 792 - People v. Mindham

253 Ill. App. 3d 792 - People v. Mindham’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2022

22 state decisions

701993200020102020decided

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 79 Ill. 2d 564 - People v. Carlson · Wintersteen v. National Cooperage & Woodenware Co. · 28 Ill. App. 3d 60 - Banks v. United Insurance Co. of America · 123 Ill. 2d 85 - People v. Gerke · 120 Ill. App. 3d 495 - People v. Miller

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

  1. “Supreme Court Rule 216 states in relevant part: “Rule 216. Admission of Fact or of Genuineness of Documents (a) Request for Admission of Fact. A party may serve on any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the truth of any specified relevant fact set forth in the request. (c) Admission in the Absence of Denial. Each of the matters of fact and the genuineness of each document of which admission is requested is admitted unless, within 28 days after service thereof, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission either (1) a sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters or (2) written objections on the ground that some or all of the requested admissions are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part. If written objections to a part of the request are made, the remainder of the request shall be answered within the period designated in the request. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. If good faith requires that a party deny only a part, or requires qualification, of a matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny only the remainder. Any objection to a request or to an answer shall be heard by the court upon prompt notice and motion of the party making the request. (”
    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.