396 Ill. App. 3d 1078 - Behl v. Gingerich’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 228 Ill. 2d 281 - MD Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Abrams · 188 Ill. 2d 314 - Jones v. Industrial Commission · Central Illinois Electrical Services, L.L.C. v. Slepian · 377 Ill. App. 3d 842 - Smith v. Bogard · 394 Ill. App. 3d 248 - K. Miller Const. Co., Inc. v. McGinnis
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Senate Bill 2540 does two things. First, it resolves confusion as to the proper remedy for the courts to apply by providing that any person who suffers actual damages as a result of a violation of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act may bring an action under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Secondly, the Home Repair and Remodeling Act requires a contractor to give a pamphlet to his — his—his customer, as well as to have a signed contract with that customer. However, what the courts have found is that some of these consumers are using the Act to get out of paying the balance due on a home repair or remodeling contract. So the courts are asking for a clarification of this. I think what we are doing through this bill is saying that, unless there’s actual damages, a consumer cannot get out of paying the balance due to a home repair or remodeling company by using these two technical provisions in the Act of requiring a pamphlet to be given and requiring a written contract before work on the project.” 96th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, March 9, 2010, at 68 (statements of Senator Wilhelmi).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“605 ILCS 5/5-201 (West 2008). ¶ 13 To ascertain the purpose of the statute, we look to the statutory language used therein and give the words their plain and ordinary meaning. Behl v. Gingerich, 396 Ill.App.3d 1078, 1087 , 336 Ill.Dec. 456 , 920 N.E.2d 665 (2009).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not sufficient to read a portion of the statute in isolation. We must, instead, read the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the legislature's apparent objective in enacting it.”
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.