269 Ill. App. 3d 1087 - Cohen v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 227 Ill. 2d 502 - Brucker v. Mercola (2007), Chelios v. Heavener (2008)
9 federal appellate · 23 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 Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health · Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital · 139 Ill. 2d 501 - Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heights · 32 Ill. 2d 361 - In Re Estate of Brooks · 22 Ill. App. 3d 883 - Cowan v. Insurance Co. of North America
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Professional misconduct or unreasonable lack of skill. *** Failure of one rendering professional services to exercise that degree of skill and learning commonly applied under all the circumstances in the community by the average prudent reputable member of the profession with the result of injury, loss or damage to the recipient of those services or to those entitled to rely upon them.’ ” Cohen v. Smith, 269 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1090 (1995), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 959 (6th ed. 1990).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is apparent from these allegations, which are taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that the plaintiff in the instant case is not alleging that the tubal ligation was performed improperly. Whether Dr. Petroff performed the tubal ligation correctly is irrelevant to count V because plaintiff alleges that Petroff had no authority to perform it in the first place. Plaintiff's claim of malpractice in count I stems from Petroff allegedly performing the tubal ligation without utilizing the appropriate standard of care. The question we must answer is,”
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.