57 Ill. 2d 376 - Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
395 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 398 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 111 Ill. 2d 229 - Purtill v. Hess (1986), 125 Ill. 2d 203 - Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard (1988)
395 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 48 Ill. 2d 580 - Fooden v. Board of Governors · 37 Ill. 2d 273 - Miller v. DeWitt · 33 Ill. 2d 316 - Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co. · 56 Ill. 2d 22 - Barnes v. Washington · 14 Ill. 2d 284 - Allen v. Meyer
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 398 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While it may be conceded that some of the decisions in this jurisdiction involving the Scaffold Act appear to have equated ‘having charge’ with ‘supervision and control’ in varying degrees, it is our opinion the language of the statute, and the legislative intent it reflects, do not permit the conclusion that the terms are the inflexible and unbending legal equivalent of the other. The term ‘having charge of’ is a generic term of broad import, and although it may include supervision and control, it is not confined to it. As was said of the word ‘charge’ in People v. Gould, 345 Ill. 288 , 323: ‘The word does not necessarily include custody, control or restraint, and its meaning must be determined by the associations and circumstances surrounding its use. “To have charge of” does not necessarily imply more than to care for or to have the care of.’ Thus, while the actual exercise of supervision and control over the work and the persons doing it, or the retention of the right to so supervise and control, may be factors bearing on the ultimate factual question of whether an owner is ‘in charge,’ they are not necessary or conclusive factors, nor is either made a sine qua non for liability under the statute. Rather, consistent with its beneficent purpose of preventing injury to persons employed in the extra-hazardous occupation of structural work, the thrust of the statute is not confined to those who perform, or supervise, or control, or who retain the right to supervise and contr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Affidavits in support of and in opposition to a motion for summary judgment under section 2 — 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure *** shall be made on the personal knowledge of the affiants; shall set forth with particularity the facts upon which the claim, counterclaim, or defense is based; shall have attached thereto sworn or certified copies of all papers upon which the affiant relies; shall not consist of conclusions but of facts admissible in evidence; and shall affirmatively show that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto. If all of the facts to be shown are not within the personal knowledge of one person, two or more affidavits shall be used.” (87 Ill. 2d R. 191(a).)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.