Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 319 Ill. App. 3d 116 - Snelson v. Kamm

319 Ill. App. 3d 116 - Snelson v. Kamm’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · 151 Ill. 2d 445 - Maple v. Gustafson · 168 Ill. 2d 83 - Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago · 195 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Hall

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. ““Although [the defendant] has alleged several ways in which [the expert’s] opinion is flawed, he has not demonstrated that [the expert’s] opinion included ‘so many varying and uncertain factors’ that he was required to guess to reach his conclusions. Instead, [the defendant’s] concerns constitute appropriate topics for cross-examination.” Snelson, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 136 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We find that the total amount of damages suffered by Robert Snelson as a proximate cause of the occurrence in question is itemized as follows: * * * The pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries ***.” See IPI Civil (1995) Nos. B45.03.A, 30.05.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “should not usurp the function of the jury and substitute its judgment on questions of fact fairly submitted, tried, and determined from the evidence which did not greatly preponderate either way.”
    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.