Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 Ill. 538 - Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Talbott

Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Talbott’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
10
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Rose v. State of California (1942), Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc. (1974)

11 federal appellate · 66 state decisions — followed in 10 states

16019261930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Rigney v. City of Chicago · Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Loeb · County of Mercer v. Wolff · St. Louis & Cairo Railroad v. Postal Telegraph Co. · McReynolds v. Burlington & Ohio River Railway Co.

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

  1. ““It is clear that the provision in the constitution of 1870 was not intended to reach every possible injury that might be occasioned by a public improvement, and that to warrant a recovery it must appear that there has been some direct physical disturbance of a right, either public or private, which the plaintiff enjoys in connection with his property and which gives it an additional value, and by reason of such disturbance he has sustained a special damage with respect to his property in excess of that sustained by the public generally. The physical disturbance need not be a physical disturbance or direct injury of the tangible object of property rights, but must be a disturbance of a right which the owner enjoys in connection with his ownership of the tangible object.””
    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.