357 Ill. App. 3d 571 - DeWitt v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 63 Ill. 2d 128 - First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. · 115 Ill. 2d 482 - Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center · 141 Ill. 2d 281 - Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. · 186 Ill. 2d 104 - Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital · 196 Ill. App. 3d 902 - First National Bank of Cicero v. Sylvester
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“meant to be utilized as a defensive mechanism—not as a means of attack.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not a proper vehicle for direct relief,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Unlike our dissenting colleague, we are not convinced that the Illinois Supreme Court’s opinions in Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 110 (1999), and Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 281, 287 (1990), directly contradict our holding in ESM Development Corp. In Doyle, *** the issue before the court was whether an employer could make unilateral changes to provisions in an employee handbook, in the absence of a previous reservation of the right to do so, that would operate to the disadvantage of existing employees. Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 110 (1999). The majority *** concluded that after an employer is contractually bound to the provisions of an employee handbook, an attempted unilateral modification of its terms by the employer to an employee’s disadvantage fails for a lack of consideration. Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d at 112-13 . In other words, the Doyle majority decided the issue before it on the basis of contract law principles. Indeed, the majority declined to address at all the issue of promissory estoppel. Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d at 117 . Then-Chief Justice Freeman, joined by Justice McMorrow, concurred in part with and dissented in part from the majority’s disposition. Justice Freeman agreed with the majority that a contract existed, and he agreed that the case should be decided on contract law principles. Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d at 118 (Freeman, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by McMorrow, J.). Ho”
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.