Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 Ill. 336 - Baker v. Brown

Baker v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably 35 Ill. 2d 305 - Faris v. Faris (1966), 72 Ill. App. 3d 101 - Weilmuenster v. H. H. Hall Construction Co. (1979)

43 state decisions

19019391940195019601970198019902000decided

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 O'Brien v. People ex rel. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. · United States v. Coronado Beach Co. · The People v. Sterling · Rogers, County Treasurer v. Bass Harbour Co. · Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co.

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

  1. ““The general rule is, a judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, * * * is not open to contradiction or impeachment in any collateral action or proceeding, except for fraud in its procurement * * *.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Brown-Strauss Corp. v. Larson · 26 Ill. App. 3d 604 - Pullman Bank & Trust Co. v. Trustees of Schools
  2. “"There is a clear distinction between the effect of a judgment which may be set aside or vacated because of error in reaching the wrong conclusion upon the facts or the pleading, and one that is void because of want of jurisdiction of the person or the subject matter. The first is merely erroneous and unless set aside by the same court, or corrected upon review, cannot be collaterally attacked. On the other hand, a judgment by a court lacking jurisdiction is void — in effect it is not a judgment — and may be attacked in any collateral proceeding by showing the lack of jurisdiction."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 29 Ill. App. 3d 848 - Miller v. General Telephone Co.

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.