37 Ill. 2d 596 - Calvetti v. Seipp’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably 88 Ill. App. 3d 522 - Holda v. County of Kane (1980), 249 Ill. App. 3d 654 - Smith v. Tri-R Vending (1993)
3 federal appellate · 50 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 344 Ill. App. 287 - Murphy v. Kumler · 66 Ill. App. 2d 353 - Sughero v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc. · 24 Ill. App. 2d 192 - Tomlinson v. Chapman · 70 Ill. App. 2d 58 - Calvetti v. Seipp
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is undisputed that the collision occurred on the plaintiff’s side of the road, and no affirmative showing was made by defendant that the skid into the opposite lane in front of the plaintiff’s car happened without negligence on her part. She made no effort to show that she was not driving too fast for road and weather conditions, or that some unavoidable event caused her to lose control. The fact that her car skidded in front of the one in which plaintiff was riding must be deemed to have arisen from some negligent act or omission, in the absence of explanation to the contrary. [Citations.]” 37 Ill. 2d 596, 598 , 227 N.E.2d 758, 760 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We do not think it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show what caused defendant’s car to skid to the wrong side of the road, or to prove other facts normally within the peculiar knowledge of the defendant. The car’s presence there under the circumstances shown leaves room for no inference other than that defendant was going too fast, or braked or steered her car improperly, or caused the skidding through some other form of negligence.” ( 37 Ill. 2d 596, 599 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think defendant ought to have shown that the danger could not have been anticipated, that her speed was reasonable in view of the weather and road conditions and that her turn to the right did not, as it would normally do, cause the rear end to slide in the opposite direction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fuller v. Pacheco
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.