377 Ill. App. 3d 842 - Smith v. Bogard’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2020
19 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 156 Ill. 2d 112 - Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge · 226 Ill. 2d 169 - Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund · Central Illinois Electrical Services, L.L.C. v. Slepian · 239 Ill. App. 3d 37 - American Home Assurance Co. v. Golomb · 372 Ill. App. 3d 890 - Townsend v. Fassbinder
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Because Smith is obligated to comply with the provisions of the Act, and because he failed to do so, he is precluded from recovering any amounts he claims due for work performed. Allowing a contractor a method of recovery when he has breached certain provisions of the Act would run afoul of the legislature's intent of protecting consumers, would reward deceptive practices, and would be violative of public policy. [Citations.] Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting the Bogards' motion to dismiss because we find that an affirmative matter (Smith's violation of the Act) defeated Smith's claim for recovery." Bogard, 377 Ill.App.3d at 848 , 316 Ill.Dec. 476 , 879 N.E.2d at 548 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The language of the Act clearly and unambiguously requires anyone engaged in the business of home repair and remodeling to obtain a signed contract before initiating work that will exceed $1,000 in cost. The trial court erred in concluding the Act did not apply in the instant case, and the court should now hear any claims that were dismissed on that basis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find the Act applies to Smith, that Smith violated several provisions of the Act, and those violations support the dismissal of his breach-of-contract claim.”
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.