Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 Ill. 2d 511 - Both v. Nelson

31 Ill. 2d 511 - Both v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
2
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 82 Ill. 2d 415 - Lynch v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COLLINSVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT DIST. (1980), 198 Ill. 2d 541 - Simmons v. Garces (2002)

66 state decisions

2501964197019801990200020102020decided

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 Lindroth v. Walgreen Co. · Baker v. Baker · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Warner · Edwards v. Hill-Thomas Lime & Cement Co. · Grosh v. Acom

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

  1. “"It is not every error, of course, that will require a reversal. Where it appears that an error did not affect the outcome below, or where the court can see from the entire record that no injury has been done, the judgment or decree will not be disturbed. [Citations.] But where the case is a close one on the facts, and the jury might have decided either way, any substantial error which might have tipped the scales in favor of the successful party calls for reversal.” (Both v. Nelson (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 511, 514 , 202 N.E.2d 494 .)”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"In Brownlie v. Brownlie, 357 Ill. 117 , this court held it was not error to permit the attesting witnesses to express an opinion of the testator's mental capacity without first laying a foundation therefore. We said the rule requiring a witness to first relate the facts and circumstances on which he bases his opinion does not apply to attesting witnesses. * * *"”
    2 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.