41 Ill. App. 3d 1033 - Danison v. Paley’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 132 Ill. 2d 304 - Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Commission (1989), 93 Ill. App. 3d 542 - Jackson Park Yacht Club v. Department of Local Government Affairs (1981)
46 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 60 Ill. 2d 350 - Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin · 80 Ill. App. 2d 329 - Oliver v. Civil Service Commission · 29 Ill. 2d 564 - Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Department of Revenue
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In all cases in which a statute or a rule of the administrative agency requires or permits an application for a rehearing or other method of administrative review to be filed within a specified time * * °, and an application for such rehearing or review is made, no administrative decision of such agency shall be final as to the party applying therefor until such rehearing or review is had or denied.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 264.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant cites Oliver v. Civil Service Com. (1967), 80 Ill. App. 2d 329 , 224 N.E.2d 671 . There is language in that case which supports defendant’s position. However, that language is clearly dicta, as the agency in question had no provision for rehearing. By the express language of section 1 of the Administrative Review Act, an administrative decision is final unless a rule of the agency permits an application for rehearing to be filed and such application is filed. Here plaintiff did not file such an application. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. A party may seek administrative review only after a final decision by the agency. In this way all the facts are set before the agency which may then utilize its expertise. If a party succeeds before the agency, judicial review is unnecessary. (Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 350, 358 , 326 N.E.2d 737, 741-42 .)” (Emphasis in original.) Danison, 41 Ill. App. 3d at 1036-37 , 355 N.E.2d at 233 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Before any officer or employee in the classified service of any municipality may be interrogated or examined by or before any disciplinary board, or department agent or investigator, the results of which hearing, interrogation or examination may be the basis for filing charges seeking his removal or discharge, he must be advised in writing as to what specific improper or illegal act he is alleged to have committed; he must be advised in writing that his admissions made in the course of the hearing, interrogation or examination may be used as the basis for charges seeking his removal or discharge; and he must be advised in writing that he has the right to counsel of his own choosing present to advise him at any hearing, interrogation or examination; and a complete record of any hearing, interrogation or examination shall be made and a complete transcript thereof made available to such officer or employee without charge and without delay.” (Emphasis added.) (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 24, par. 10-1-18.)”
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.