65 Ill. 2d 54 - McGovern v. Standish’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 state decisions

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

1. ““[Cjonsistent 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 control, the actual work from which the injury arises, but, to insure maximum protection, is made to extend to owners and others who have charge of the erection or alteration of any building or structure.” ( 33 Ill. 2d 316, 322 , 211 N.E.2d 247, 251 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Greenstreet v. Deere & Co. · 76 Ill. 2d 481 - Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner Equipment Rental and Excavating Co.

2. ““Any owner, contractor, sub-contractor, foreman or other person having charge of the erection [or] construction *** of any building *** within the provisions of this act, shall comply with all the terms thereof ***. * * * For any injury to person or property, occasioned by any wilful violations of this act, *** a right of action shall accrue to the party injured, for any direct damages sustained thereby; ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, par. 69.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 68 Ill. 2d 399 - Crothers v. La Salle Institute · 71 Ill. 2d 111 - Emberton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

3. ““[W]e do not read Miller as holding that the right to stop the work, without more, is conclusive in resolving the question of whether a person has charge of the work within the meaning of the Act. (See Voss v. Kingdon and Naven, Inc., 60 Ill. 2d 520, 526-27 ; McInerney v. Hasbrook Construction Co., 62 Ill. 2d 93, 103-04 .) Rather, such a determination must rest upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances. Furthermore, we do not believe that the defendant in the instant case had the right to stop the work, in the sense that the right was discussed in Miller. In Miller, we referred to ‘the architects’ right to stop the work if it were being done in a dangerous manner * ° V (Emphasis added.) ( 37 Ill. 2d 273, 286 .) The record in the instant case does not establish that the defendant had any comparable right. The defendant was recognized as having the right to reject defective materials and workmanship and require its correction. Even if we read into this clause a right to stop the work in the case of improper construction, a reading by no means compelled by the language employed, it does not follow that the defendant had the right to stop the work where dangerous methods not affecting the quality of the construction were utilized. Also, while the architect could certify to the owner that sufficient cause existed for the termination of the contractor’s employment and the stopping of the work, the clause so providing allowed action only by the owner and only then upon”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 Ill. App. 3d 1050 - Fruzyna v. Walter C. Carlson Associates, Inc.