284 Ill. App. 3d 577 - Serafin v. Seith’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 197 Ill. 2d 28 - Morris v. Margulis (2001), 316 Ill. App. 3d 340 - Owens v. McDermott, Will & Emery (2000)
11 federal appellate · 46 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 158 Ill. 2d 240 - Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer · 111 Ill. 2d 416 - Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital · 154 Ill. 2d 398 - Cunningham v. Huffman · 114 Ill. 2d 252 - People Ex Rel. Skinner v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. · 147 Ill. 2d 458 - Hagney v. Lopeman
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The period of repose gives effect to a policy different from that advanced by a period of limitations; the purpose of a statute of repose is to impose a cap on the applicability of the discovery rule so that the outer limit terminates the possibility of liability after a definite period of time, regardless of a potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his cause of action. [Citations.] * * * The fact that a repose provision may, in a particular instance, bar an action before it is discovered is an accidental rather than necessary consequence.'" (Emphasis in original) Meyers, 316 Ill.App.3d at 986 , 250 Ill.Dec. 154 , 738 N.E.2d 118 , quoting Serafin v. Seith, 284 Ill.App.3d 577, 588 , 219 Ill.Dec. 794 , 672 N.E.2d 302 (1996), citing Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital, 111 Ill.2d 416, 424 , 95 Ill.Dec. 812 , 490 N.E.2d 665 (1986).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship that establishes a duty on the part of the attorney; (2) a negligent act or omission constituting a breach of that duty; (3) proximate cause establishing that ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action; and (4) damages.” Serafín v. Seith, 284 111. App. 3d 577, 586-87, 672 N.E.2d 302 (1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“more than 6 years after the date on which the act or omission occurred.”
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.