Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 Ill. App. 3d 538 - Knauerhaze v. Nelson

361 Ill. App. 3d 538 - Knauerhaze v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co. (2008), 366 Ill. App. 3d 1 - Hooper v. County of Cook (2006)

3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

390200520102020decided

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 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · 151 Ill. 2d 445 - Maple v. Gustafson · 179 Ill. 2d 367 - Best v. Taylor MacHine Works · 84 Ill. 2d 186 - Wilson v. Clark

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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"A trial court cannot reweigh the evidence and set aside a verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions, or because the court feels that other results are more reasonable. [Citations.] Likewise, the appellate court should not usurp the function of the jury and substitute its judgment on questions of fact fairly submitted, tried, and determined from the evidence which did not greatly preponderate either way." Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill.2d at 452-53 , 177 Ill. Dec. 438 , 603 N.E.2d 508 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When Briske, Merlo, and Thompson ask whether the defendant's conduct was a cause of the injury or simply furnished a condition by which the injury was made possible, they are in effect asking whether the defendant's conduct was a material and substantial element in bringing about the injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “patches worn by DiCosolo prior to her death contained a manufacturing defect. At trial, plaintiff's theory was that the penultimate patch was defective and the sole cause of DiCosolo's death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. The trial court denied defendants' posttrial motions. This appeal followed. ¶ 11 ANALYSIS ¶ 12 I. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ¶ 13 Defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Specifically, they contend that plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of product”
    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.