39 Ill. 2d 226 - Muhlbauer v. Kruzel’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently June 1996 · most notably 50 Ill. 2d 351 - Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little (1972), 113 Ill. 2d 26 - Allison v. Shell Oil Co. (1986)
8 federal appellate · 101 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 37 Ill. 2d 273 - Miller v. DeWitt · Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. · 343 Ill. App. 148 - Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. · Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Co. v. Evans Construction Co. · 86 Ill. App. 2d 187 - Sargent v. Interstate Bakeries, Inc.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. “We recognize that the policy of section 25(2) can be frustrated by a rigid and formal approach to the pleadings; nevertheless, a third-party complaint must disclose some relationship upon which a duty to indemnify may be predicated.” 39 Ill.2d at 231-32 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““*** Because a plaintiff may amend his complaint, even after trial, to conform the pleadings to the proof (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 110, par. 46), numerous decisions have emphasized the difficulty of determining, as a matter of law at the pleading stage, that ‘in no event’ would the defendant have an action over against the third-party defendant. [Citations.] We recognize that the policy of section 25(2) [Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 25(2)] can be frustrated by a rigid arid formal approach to the pleadings; nevertheless, a third-party complaint must disclose some relationship upon which a duty to indemnify may be predicated.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of this section [25(2)] is the same as that of Federal Rule 14, which is to save the time and cost of a reduplication of evidence, to obtain consistent results from identical or similar evidence, and to do away with the serious handicap to a defendant of a time difference between a judgment against him, and a judgment in his favor against the third party defendant. (Muhlbauer v. Kruzel, 39 Ill.2d 226 , 234 N.E.2d 790 .) Section 25(2) was designed to avoid circuity of action and ‘to permit the determination of the rights and liabilities of all parties before a single tribunal and upon the same evidence.’ Miller v. DeWitt, 37 Ill.2d 273 , 226 N.E.2d 630 .””
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.