326 Ill. App. 3d 1074 - Broadnax v. Morrow’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2020
16 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 88 Ill. 2d 407 - Knox College v. Celotex Corp. · 156 Ill. 2d 112 - Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge · 166 Ill. 2d 72 - Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co. · 158 Ill. 2d 240 - Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer · 213 Ill. App. 3d 242 - Gardner v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No cause of action brought by any person or entity against any insurance producer, registered firm, or limited insurance representative concerning the sale, placement, procurement, renewal, binding, cancellation of, or failure to procure any policy of insurance shall subject the insurance producer, registered firm, or limited insurance representative to civil liability under standards governing the conduct of a fiduciary or a fiduciary relationship except when the conduct upon which the cause of action is based involves the wrongful retention or misappropriation by the insurance producer, registered firm, or limited insurance representative of any money that was received as premiums, as a premium deposit, or as payment of a claim." Pub. Act 82-280 (eff. Jan. 1, 1997) (enacting 735 ILCS 5/2-2201(b) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]aiting for a final judicial determination of [the insurer's] responsibility in the breach of contract matter and then waiting nearly two years, almost the entire limitations period, before pursuing a negligence action against the defendants is not a reasonable application of the discovery rule in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“tort arising out of a contractual relationship”
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.