Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 Ill. App. 3d 369 - McMath v. Katholi

304 Ill. App. 3d 369 - McMath v. Katholi’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2019

16 state decisions

110199920002010decided

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 182 Ill. 2d 404 - People v. Hobley · 69 Ill. 2d 507 - People v. Holmes · 181 Ill. 2d 112 - Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp. · Reidelberger v. Highland Body Shop, Inc. · 299 Ill. App. 3d 818 - People v. Owen

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The trial court allowed Katholi’s opinion testimony after citing and reading from a provision in Rule 220 that excepted from disclosure any party whose professional malpractice formed the subject matter of the litigation. 134 Ill. 2d R. 220(c)(4), repealed by order of June 1, 1995 (see Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 20 (September 27, 1995)). However, the whole point of replacing Rule 220 with the amendments to Rule 213 and Rule 218 was to rid Illinois law of the myriad of exceptions under the old rule. *** We therefore conclude that the court abused its discretion by applying an exception to Rule 220 in a case governed by Rule 213.” 304 Ill. App. 3d at 378-79 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.