47 Ill. App. 3d 999 - Chisolm v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably 117 Ill. App. 3d 933 - Fuller v. Justice (1983), 89 Ill. App. 3d 640 - Schoondyke v. Heil, Heil, Smart & Golee, Inc. (1980)
4 federal appellate · 114 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 Glanzer v. . Shepard · 31 Ill. 2d 69 - Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp. · 54 Ill. 2d 539 - Mieher v. Brown · 56 Ill. 2d 22 - Barnes v. Washington · 56 Ill. 2d 95 - Boyd v. Racine Currency Exchange, Inc.
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Reliance may reasonably be placed where there is a deceptive appearance that performance had been made, or where a representation of performance has been communicated to plaintiff by defendant, or where plaintiff is otherwise prevented from obtaining knowledge or substitute performance of the undertaking.’ [Citations.] Moreover, ‘to justify reliance, [a] plaintiff must be unaware of the actual circumstances and not equally capable of determining such facts.’ ” Bourgonje, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 1005 , 841 N.E.2d at 114-15 , quoting Chisolm v. Stephens, 47 Ill. App. 3d 999, 1007 , 365 N.E.2d 80, 86 (1977).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The instant case involves nonfeasance, a complete omission or failure to perform, rather than misfeasance, a negligent performance. Here the issue is not defendants’ manner of performance in clearing the ice from the sidewalk but whether they had any duty to perform the cleaning on the day of the incident. *** Plaintiff failed to establish a contractual duty, either express or implied.” Chisolm, 47 Ill. App. 3d at 1006 , 365 N.E.2d at 85-86 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“liability for nonfeasance in connection with a gratuitous undertaking may arise where the beneficiaries had relied on its performance.” (Chisolm, 47 Ill. App. 3d at 1007 .) The court noted that to justify reliance, a plaintiff must be”
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.