62 Ill. 2d 435 - Meyer v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

cited by 83 later decisions

states following

September 2009

most recently cited

81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably 71 Ill. 2d 166 - People v. Nicholls (1978), 76 Ill. 2d 154 - Kerns v. Engelke (1979)

81 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 Ritter v. Ritter · 3 Ill. 2d 375 - La Salle National Bank v. City of Chicago · 42 Ill. 2d 45 - House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane · 55 Ill. 2d 177 - Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co. v. Barker · 5 Ill. 2d 494 - Schien v. City of Virden

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““The decision reached by the appellate court is based upon a supposed analogy to the statutory scheme of the costs act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 33, par. 1 etseq.), under which those items of costs which are recoverable by a successful plaintiff are likewise recoverable by the defendant if the latter prevails. It is for this reason that the appellate court felt required to review the ruling of the trial court upon the merits. The analogy is not persuasive, however, for only those items of costs designated by statute may be allowed as such, and attorneys’ fees are not of that character. [Citation.] Apart from statute, there is, of course, no right on the part of the successful party to recover ‘attorneys’ fees and the ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation.’ (House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 45, 51-52 .) For the reasons given above that part of the judgment of the appellate court setting aside the award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs was also erroneous.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Meyer v. Marshall
““The sole remaining issue for our consideration is whether as defendants request, costs including attorney’s fees should be assessed against the plaintiffs. The defendants argue that since the plaintiffs brought their action pursuant to section 11 — 13—15 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 24, par. 11 — 13— 15) which allows a successful plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees and since the Costs Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 33, par. 8) would have permitted the defendants to recover like costs if they had been successful at trial, they were entitled to recover costs including attorney’s fees against the plaintiffs. But for the error of the trial court in interpreting the Columbia Zoning Ordinance, judgment would have been for defendants. Therefore, we hold that the defendants should be allowed to recover costs, including attorney’s fees against the plaintiffs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Meyer v. Marshall
““The mootness of the present case, however, arises out of the fact that the defendants abandoned their original project. To leave the judgment of the trial court in effect would therefore not have an adverse effect on the defendants by way of res judicata. We believe the most appropriate disposition is to reverse the judgment of the appellate court and to remand the cause to that court with directions to dismiss the appeal. In so doing we are not to be understood as having expressed any opinion with regard to those provisions of the zoning ordinance of the city of Columbia which were involved in the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Meyer v. Marshall

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.