40 Ill. 2d 338 - Summers v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably 228 Ill. 2d 404 - Williams v. Manchester (2008), 82 Ill. 2d 571 - City of Springfield v. Allphin (1980)
7 federal appellate · 77 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 Clarke v. Storchak · Lorch v. Eglin · Palmer v. Miller · Gledhill v. Connecticut Co. · Phelps v. Benson
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In substance, this defense rests on the theory that the negligence of a defendant-driver is imputable to an owner-passenger when the latter does not relinquish control of the vehicle to the former. This theory is not well taken because the negligence of a driver is not imputed to an owner-passenger in the absence of the relationship of respondeat superior or the existence of a joint enterprise, (citations omitted). An owner-passenger is chargeable for his own negligence on failing to perform his duty to control a driver, but the negligence of the driver is not imputable to him. * * * 40 Ill.2d at 343 , 239 N.E.2d at 799 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is evident that our guest statute, originally enacted in 1931, is in derogation of pre-existing common law in that it places a limitation on common-law rights of recovery. ” ” ” It is equally evident that this statute in its present form does not expressly apply to an owner-occupant of an automobile being driven by another; therefore, in absence of a finding of legislative intent to thfe contrary, our rule of construction requires the holding that an owner-occupant is not subject to the limitations of the guest statute.” 40 Ill. 2d 338, 342-43 , 329 N.E.2d 795 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'statutes in derogation of common law are to be strictly construed and nothing is to be read into such statutes by intendment or implication.'”
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.