368 Ill. App. 3d 492 - Brandon v. Bonell’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Sellers v. Rudert (2009), 401 Ill. App. 3d 1006 - Fitch v. McDermott, Will and Emery, LLP (2010)
3 federal appellate · 37 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)
Relies on 199 Ill. 2d 325 - Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. · 125 Ill. 2d 203 - Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard · 73 Ill. 2d 113 - Towns v. Yellow Cab Co. · 148 Ill. 2d 151 - Currie v. Lao · 133 Ill. 2d 295 - Healy v. Vaupel
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““According to the test, in order to determine if sovereign immunity protects an employee for his own act of negligence, one must look to the source of the duty the employee is charged with breaching in committing the negligent act. [Citation.] When the state employee allegedly breaches a duty that arises solely by virtue of his state employment, sovereign immunity will bar in circuit court an action that is founded on that breach. [Citation.] However, when an employee breaches a duty imposed independently of his state employment, he is entitled to no more immunity than is a private individual who breaches that same duty and the mere fact of his employment will not endow him with heightened protection. [Citation.] Thus, even if an employee is acting in the scope of his employment, he will not be protected by sovereign immunity for breaching a duty that arises separately from his state employment. [Citation.] When applying the ‘source of duty’ test, courts have found that an independent duty is a duty imposed by the employee’s status as something other than an employee. [Citations.] For example, professionals employed by the State, such as public defenders and doctors at state hospitals, are not protected by sovereign immunity when they breach a professional duty owed by every member of that profession. [Citations.] Because a professional duty derives from the duty of care imposed by one’s status as a professional, this is an independent duty that does not arise solely from one”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Consequently, the statute imposes a duty solely on the Department of Corrections, and thus, any duty it imposes on Department of Corrections employees arises solely by virtue of their employment. Further, this court cannot find any common-law duty, akin to that of lawyers, doctors and other health professionals, and motor[-]vehicle operators, that kitchen supervisors have to keep kitchen staff members safe. [Citation.] Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that the duty defendants allegedly breached arose solely from their employment. Because plaintiffs do not allege any facts showing that defendants breached a duty to plaintiffs that arose independently of defendants’ state employment, the action is considered one against the State. [Citation.] In addition, because defendants’ duty does not arise independently of their employment, we need not address if defendants’ conduct was unique to their employment such that a lawsuit aimed at their conduct would operate to control state policies or actions, such that sovereign immunity applies.” Brandon, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 508 , 858 N.E.2d at 482 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“deprives the trial court of all power except to dismiss the action”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Carroll
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.