48 Ill. 2d 1 - Ullman v. Wolverine Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 215 Ill. 2d 381 - Gillen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2005), 131 Ill. 2d 308 - Wilson v. Hoffman Group, Inc. (1989)
1 federal appellate · 137 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 4 Ill. 2d 273 - Geneva Construction Co. v. Martin Transfer & Storage Co. · O'Brien v. Chicago City Railway Co. · 232 Cal. App. 2d 4 - Grunfeld v. Pacific Automobile Insurance · Peterson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · 184 So. 2d 229 - Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Gavin
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Illinois, if the deduction challenged here is permitted, the employee’s position is the same under the uninsured motorist’s coverage as it would be had the tortfeasor carried the minimum insurance. Where the tortfeasor is insured, the employee reimburses his employer in full from the recovery from the tortfeasor. Where the tortfeasor is uninsured, the benefits paid by the employer are deducted from the- recovery. If the benefits paid by the employer exceed the amount payable under the coverage, as here, the insurance carrier is without liability. In neither instance does the employee retain both compensation from the employer and identical damages from the tortfeasor. The deduction provision does not cause the employee with uninsured motorist’s coverage to have less financial protection than he would have had if the tortfeasor had carried insurance in the minimal amount. Were we to hold it is contrary to public policy, it would mean that an injured employee’s extent of recovery, under circumstances such as exist here, would hinge on the fortuitous circumstance that the tortfeasor was uninsured and was not otherwise financially responsible.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““(1) On or after July 1, 1963, no policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be renewed or delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in Section 7 — 203 of The Illinois Vehicle Code for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom,® ® *.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“`to place the policyholder in substantially the same position he would occupy, so far as his being injured or killed is concerned, if the wrongful driver had had the minimum liability insurance required by the [Illinois Vehicle Code].'”
3 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.