44 Ill. 2d 412 - Deckard v. Joiner’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 184 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 85 Ill. 2d 253 - Sears v. Sears (1981), 49 Ill. 2d 131 - Fultz v. Haugan (1971)
5 federal appellate · 184 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 Groves v. Farmers State Bank · Altschuler v. Altschuler · 14 Ill. 2d 526 - Anastaplo v. Radford · 90 Ill. App. 2d 348 - Martin v. Masini · 41 Ill. 2d 423 - Village of Roxana v. Costanzo
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To hold to the contrary would not only violate the spirit of our rule [Supreme Court Rule 303(a)], which contemplates the prompt and orderly prosecution of an appeal, but would render it a nullity. As occurred in this case, any party could defeat the rule and delay appeal merely by filing successive and repetitious motions to vacate.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] determination is final * * * if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or a separate branch thereof [citations], and * * * where matters left for future determination are merely incidental to the ultimate rights which have been adjudicated by the judgment or decree. [Citations.]” 44 Ill.2d 412, 416-7 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No timely appeal was taken from those orders and that branch of the controversy was closed. And this is so despite the effort of defendant, in excess of four years later, to attack the orders by motions to vacate them and to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity upon which they were in part based. Not only had the court lost jurisdiction to entertain such motions after 30 days (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 110, par. 72.), but the mere filing of a motion to vacate after the time for appeal had passed could not have had the effect of rendering the orders interlocutory. (Cf. Deibler v. Bernard Bros., Inc., 385 Ill. 610 ; Lenhart v. Miller, 375 Ill. 346 .) Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review the 1962 and 1963 orders in this appeal.” 44 Ill.2d 412, 417 , 255 N.E.2d 900, 903 .”
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.