32 Ill. 2d 489 - Simmons v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 227 Ill. 2d 343 - Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital (2008), 111 Ill. 2d 266 - Zeh v. Wheeler (1986)
61 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 4 Ill. 2d 273 - Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co. · 4 Ill. 2d 342 - Orlicki v. McCarthy · 17 Ill. 2d 181 - Dworak v. Tempel · Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co. · Railway Express Agency v. Industrial Commission
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(b) The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall appear from the original and amended pleadings that the cause of action asserted, *** grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the original pleading, *** and for the purpose of preserving the cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in the amended pleading, and for that purpose only, an amendment to any pleading shall be held to relate back to the date of the filing of the original pleading so amended.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2— 616(b).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'attempting to slip in an entirely distinct claim in violation of the spirit of the limitations act.’ ” Sompolski, 239 Ill. App. 3d at 1091 , 608 N.E.2d at 57 , quoting Simmons v. Hendricks (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 489, 497 , 207 N.E.2d 440, 444 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[A] defendant has not been prejudiced so long as his attention has been directed, within the time prescribed or limited to the facts that form the basis of the claim asserted against him.'”
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.