Howlett v. Doglio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 116 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was not a tort, at common law, to either sell or give intoxicating liquor to ‘a strong and able-bodied man,’ and it can be said safely, that it is not anywhere laid down in the books that such act was ever held, at common law, to be culpable negligence, that would impose legal liability for damages ,upon the vendor or donor of such liquor.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 Ill. App. 3d 496 - Lowe v. Rubin · 21 Ill. App. 2d 444 - St. Clair v. Douvas

2. ““Every person, who shall be injured, in person or property by any intoxicated person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, have caused the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such person; and any person owning, renting, leasing or permitting the occupation of any building or premises, and having knowledge that alcoholic liquors are to be sold therein, or who having leased the same for other purposes, shall knowingly permit therein the sale of any alcoholic liquors that have caused, in whole or in part, the intoxication of any person, shall be liable, severally or jointly, with the person or persons selling or giving liquors. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Ill. App. 2d 212 - Fortner v. Norris

3. ““As pointedly observed in Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59 , ‘A pecuniary loss or damage must be one which can be measured by some standard. It is a term employed judicially, “not only to express the character of the loss of the beneficial plaintiff which is the foundation of recovery, but also to discriminate between a material loss which is susceptible of pecuniary valuation, and that inestimable loss of the society and companionship of the deceased relative upon which, in the nature of things, it is not possible to set a pecuniary valuation.” ’ ” 402 Ill. 311, 317 , 83 N.E.2d 708, 712 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 89 Ill. App. 3d 1144 - Elliott v. Willis