35 Ill. App. 3d 930 - May v. Pollution Control Board’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably 55 Ill. App. 3d 545 - Ranquist v. Stackler (1977), 123 Ill. App. 3d 176 - Lipman v. Board of Review (1984)
23 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 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · 57 Ill. 2d 170 - City of Waukegan v. Pollution Control Board · 57 Ill. 2d 482 - City of Monmouth v. Pollution Control Board · 60 Ill. 2d 204 - Southern Illinois Asphalt Co. v. Pollution Control Board · 82 Ill. App. 2d 457 - Prosk v. Allstate Insurance
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take into consideration all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions, discharges or deposits involved including, but not limited to: (i) the character and degree of injury to, or interference with the protection of the health, general welfare and physical property of the people; (ii) the social and economic value of the pollution source; (iii) the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to the area in which it is located, including the question of priority of location in the area involved; (iv) the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from such pollution source; and (v) any economic benefits accrued by a noncomplying pollution source because of its delay in compliance with pollution control requirements.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111½, par. 1033.)”
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.