Adair v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Executive Arts Studio, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids (2004), Buck v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School (2010)
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 184 Ill. 2d 290 - River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park · Maiden v. Rozwood · Traverse City School Dist. v. Atty. Gen. · Brown v. Manistee County Road Commission · Sewell v. Clean Cut Management, 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“`Whether a factual grouping constitutes a "transaction”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[U]nder the same evidence test the definition of what constitutes a cause of action is narrower than under the transactional test. As explained in the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, the same evidence test is tied to the theories of relief asserted by a plaintiff, the result of which is that two claims may be part of the same transaction, yet be considered separate causes of action because the evidence needed to support the theories on which they are based differs. By contrast, the transactional approach is more pragmatic. Under this approach, a claim is viewed in “factual terms” and considered “coterminous with the transaction, regardless of the number of substantive theories, or variant forms of relief flowing from those theories, that may be available to the plaintiff; * * * and regardless of the variations in the evidence needed to support the theories or rights.””
3 later decisions 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.