Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 ILLCTCL 105 - Phipps v. State

Phipps v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Carev v. State · Childs v. State · Petrusak v. State

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The State is not an insurer as to the safety of an inmate in its custody. It does however have a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent its inmates from suffering harm at the hands of other inmates. 0 ° “ Foreseeability of potential for harm is a necessary element which must be proven by the preponderance of the evidence in this type of case. What is foreseeable necessarily must be judged by the facts in each case and by taking judicial notice of the prison environment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.