292 Ill. App. 3d 691 - NBD Bank v. Krueger Ringier, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 406 Ill. App. 3d 669 - Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos (2010), American United Logistics Inc Central American Warehousing Co Inc v. Catellus Development Corporation (2003)
2 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 91 Ill. 2d 69 - Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. · 117 Ill. 2d 507 - Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center · 176 Ill. 2d 179 - In Re Chicago Flood Litigation · 92 Ill. 2d 171 - Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf · 125 Ill. 2d 203 - Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is readily apparent that the tort claim which plaintiffs seek to pursue fails to satisfy several of these criteria. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act and companion regulations were not designed to protect the purchasers of real estate who discover after the conveyance that remedial action is necessary to remove contamination from the property, nor was the Act designed to protect against economic losses resulting from the obligation to remove contaminants. In addition, there is no clear need for civil actions under the statute; the existing legislative scheme which provides for prosecution by the State of Illinois and allows contribution claims against third-party violators more than adequately serves the purpose of the statute, which is to protect the environment and minimize environmental change, (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To recover in tort, there must be a showing of harm above and beyond disappointed expectations. A purchaser’s desire to enjoy the benefit of his bargain is. not an interest that tort law traditionally protects. The remedy for economic loss, relating to a purchaser’s disappointed expectations due to deterioration, internal breakdown or nonaccidental causes, lies in contract. Thus, the economic loss doctrine bars recovery in tort under such circumstances, regardless of the plaintiffs inability to recover under an action in contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits—without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property ... as well as the diminution in the value of the product because it is inferior in quality and does not work for the general purposes for which it was manufactured and sold.”
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.