29 Ill. App. 2d 323 - Caley v. Manicke’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably 168 Ill. 2d 83 - Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago (1995), 34 Ill. 2d 125 - Marut v. Costello (1966)
60 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 Botta v. Brunner · Affett v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. · The People v. Fisher · Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company · Ratner v. Arrington
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Proximate cause was a part of plaintiffs case. It was as indispensable as the elements of defendant’s negligence, plaintiffs freedom therefrom, and damage. Without it, plaintiffs action would have failed. But when he has borne the burden of proof and established the material elements necessary to make out a case, it is then the defendant’s right, but certainly not his duty — to put on his defense. This is not shifting the burden of proof. One cannot be said to have a burden if one may pick it up or not as he pleases. Obviously if there is evidence negative of causation, a defendant should show it, but the law in according him the privilege of going forward in no wise shifts to him the burden of proof as the law knows that phrase.” (Emphasis added.) Caley, 29 Ill. App. 2d at 328-29 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future.” Defendant first contends that the trial judge erred by denying a motion for a new trial because the jury should not have been instructed on future pain and suffering in the absence of expert testimony. He also contends that admitting the life expectancy chart was error because it implicitly lent credibility to an award for future pain and suffering. •1 We begin with the general rule that a litigant is entitled to an instruction on a theory of recovery if there is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In the first place, such an argument can suggest valid considerations for rendering the abstraction of pain and suffering comprehensible for concrete translation into dollars; Secondly, the argument is logically suggested by the evidence when read in context with the monetary determination that must be made; Thirdly, this line of argument falls within hitherto accepted bounds of advocacy and it is not apparent to us where it now o're leaps them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.