46 Ill. 2d 465 - Plank v. Holman’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
119 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 353 - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), 55 Ill. 2d 240 - Hardware State Bank v. Cotner (1973)
119 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 33 Ill. 2d 514 - Miller v. Pillsbury Co. · 325 Ill. App. 161 - Elliott v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. · 108 Ill. App. 2d 216 - Plank v. Holman
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, reconstruction testimony may not be used as a substitute for eyewitness testimony where such is available. Whether it may be used in addition to eyewitness testimony is determined by whether it is necessary to rely on knowledge and application of principles of science beyond the ken of the average juror.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whether plaintiff may be considered an eyewitness to the accident is determined by the circumstances she observed. If the plaintiff could relate circumstances from which the decedent’s behavior and operation of his automobile might be reasonably inferred, she may be termed an ‘eyewitness.’ (See: Elliot v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., 325 Ill. App. 161 .) It is not necessary that an eyewitness see everything that occurred at the accident scene. Although the plaintiff did not see all three automobiles involved immediately before the accident, she could determine the location of her husband’s auto in relation to the center line of the highway. The location of decedent’s automobile at impact would be almost conclusively determinative of the issue of the negligence of the defendants and the lack of decedent’s contributory negligence.” ( 46 Ill.2d 465, 469 , 264 N.E.2d 12, 14 .)”
2 later decisions 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.