38 Ill. App. 2d 392 - Colligan v. Cousar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions

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

1. ““[T]he common-law rule is generally qualified to the extent of giving a right of action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished, where the liquor was given or sold to a person who was in such a condition as to be deprived of his will power or responsibility for his behavior, or to a habitual drunkard, or in violation of a prohibitory stat-ute____””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elder v. Fisher

2. ““It is established that in some circumstances a vendor’s sale of liquor may constitute a wilful violation of his duty to one other than the consumer thereof and be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by such third person, so that for such injury the latter may have a right of action at common law against the vendor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elder v. Fisher

3. “It is incumbent upon this court to determine what the common law of Illinois would be had there been no Dram Shop Act in existence. We have no decision directly in point on this question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Pena