28 Ill. App. 3d 475 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2000
3 federal appellate · 14 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 32 - House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane · 44 Ill. 2d 49 - Canfield v. Spear · 8 Ill. 2d 351 - Bauer v. Sawyer · 85 Ill. App. 2d 350 - Revcor, Inc. v. Fame, Inc. · 87 Ill. App. 2d 206 - Dinn Oil Co. v. Hanover Insurance
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While clientele may properly be called the customers of a particular business, they cannot be considered the `property' of that business. While a business can have a proprietary interest in lists of customers which it maintains, no business has a proprietary interest in the customers themselves." ( 28 Ill. App.3d at 478 , 328 N.E.2d at 644 .)”
3 later decisions 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.