Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 Ill. App. 3d 395 - Roberts v. Dahl

6 Ill. App. 3d 395 - Roberts v. Dahl’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1999

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

100197219801990decided

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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Arnstein v. Porter · Empire Electronics Co. v. United States · Weitzenkorn v. Lesser · 35 Cal. 2d 653 - Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““» # * [jjt has been held that an affidavit in support of a motion for summary judgment is actually a substitute for testimony taken in open court and should contain as much pertinent information as the affiant could competently testify to if he were sworn as a witness [citation] and where such well alleged facts are not contradicted by counteraffidavit, they must be taken as true, notwithstanding the existence of contrary averments in the adverse party’s pleadings which merely purport to establish bona fide issues of fact. [Citations.] Also, as against positive, detailed averments of fact in an affidavit, aHegations made on information and behef by an adverse party are insufficient, for they are not equivalent to averments of relevant facts but rather put in issue only the pleader’s information and belief and not the truth or falsity of the ‘facts’ referred to. [Citations.]””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘Where the movant in support of his motion [for summary judgment] supplies facts which, if uncontradicted, entitles [sic] him to judgment, the opposing party cannot rely alone on his complaint or answer even though the complaint and answer standing alone do present a genuine issue of a material fact.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The judgment or decree sought shall be rendered forthwith 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 that the moving party is entitled to -a ' judgment or decree as. a: matter of law.””
    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.