48 Ill. App. 3d 152 - Moore v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 134 Ill. App. 3d 792 - Lakeview Trust & Savings Bank v. Estrada (1985), 130 Ill. App. 3d 18 - Tomaso v. Plum Grove Bank (1985)
4 federal appellate · 96 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 Goldberg v. Kelly · Shelley v. Kraemer · 40 Ill. 2d 193 - Maki v. Frelk · 45 Ill. 2d 405 - Kazubowski v. Kazubowski · Hale v. Hale
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule requiring joinder of indispensable parties is not applied when a party, though not before the court in person, is so represented by others that his interest receives actual and efficient protection. (Mortimore v. Bashore, 317 Ill. 535 , 148 N.E. 317 (1925); Cales v. Dressler, 315 Ill. 142 , 146 N.E. 162 (1925); Cody Trust Co. v. Hotel Clayton Co., 293 Ill. App. 1 , 12 N.E.2d 32 (2d Dist. 1937); Glickauf v. Moss, 23 Ill. App. 3d 679 , 320 N.E.2d 132 (1st Dist. 1974); Boghosian v. Mid-City National Bank of Chicago, 25 Ill. App. 2d 455 , 167 N.E.2d 442 (1st Dist. I960).) This so-called “doctrine of representation” applies where persons are before the court who have the same interests, and will be equally certain to bring them forward and protect them, as those of persons not before the court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If errors are committed or erroneous and unjust decisions are rendered they may be corrected in the manner provided by law for the correction of such errors, but mere error in a judgment or decree does not deprive the losing party of the benefit of due process of law. The sole question relating to the denial of the motion for a continuance is whether or not the trial court erred in its exercise of judicial discretion. Due process is in nowise involved.” ( 364 Ill. 628, 629-30 , 5 N.E.2d 466 , 467.)”
1 later decision 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.