Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 Ill. 51 - Williams v. Consumers Co.

Williams v. Consumers Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
October 1992
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably 39 Ill. 2d 346 - The People v. Caldwell (1968), 149 Ill. 2d 1 - Meyers v. Kissner (1992)

4 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

501933194019501960197019801990decided

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 Johnson v. Pendergast · McCarthy v. Spring Valley Coal Co. · Mithen v. Jeffery · Illinois-Indiana Fair Ass'n v. Phillips · Eldorado Coal & Coke Co. v. Swan

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.

  1. ““ ° ° ° where improper remarks and questions of an attorney have been asked a witness with the apparent purpose of informing the jury that an insurance company, rather than the party sued, would be liable for any damages assessed. We have examined these cases but find none where a mis-trial has ever been granted on account of an inadvertent or unresponsive answer of a witness to a legitimate inquiry. Generally, where prejudicial error has been declared it is found to have been due to some misconduct or improper remarks or questions of counsel, oft-times repeated, and calculated to influence or prejudice the jury.” ( 352 Ill. 51, 55 , 185 N.E. 217, 219 .)”
    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.