34 Ill. 2d 451 - Mroczynski v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably 63 Ill. 2d 165 - Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education (1976), 156 Ill. 2d 76 - Cates v. Cates (1993)
55 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 7 Ill. 2d 608 - Nudd v. Matsoukas · 41 Ill. App. 2d 240 - Zepeda v. Zepeda · Foley v. Foley · Meece v. Holland Furnace 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the common law, a child could not maintain an action against his or her parents sounding in tort. This was a matter of public policy due to the interests of the State in maintaining harmony within the family. This doctrine of parental immunity was recognized and adopted as the public policy of Illinois in Foley v. Foley, 61 Ill. App. 577 and Meece v. Holland Furnace Co., 269 Ill. App. 164 . We had occasion to review this principle in Nudd v. Matsoukas, 7 Ill.2d 608 , where we recognized the public policy of Illinois as declared by early decisions. We there held that while there might be sufficient justification to prevent suits for mere negligence, public policy in a case of wilful misconduct did not prevent redress of a minor from his parent, as to deprive the minor of redress in such a case would not foster family unity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: (a) The transaction of any business within this State;” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110, par. 17(1)(a).)”
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.