65 Ill. App. 3d 255 - Guebard v. Jabaay’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Smith v. City of Chicago Heights (1992), 117 Ill. App. 3d 1 - Guebard v. Jabaay (1983)
5 federal appellate · 37 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 22 Ill. 2d 432 - Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · 43 Ill. 2d 54 - Rozny v. Marnul · 61 Ill. 2d 129 - Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. · 46 Ill. 2d 32 - Lipsey v. Michael Reese Hospital · 59 Ill. App. 3d 706 - Roper v. Markle
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Plaintiff's contention in the present case would extend the discovery rule as applied to medical malpractice cases to mean that the cause of action accrues when the person injured learns, or reasonably should have learned, of the identity of the person responsible for his injury, even though he earlier knew of the injury itself. We are not aware of any case in which the discovery rule has been so extended or applied and we are not convinced that the logic of the rule warrants such an extension by us. [Citation.] In applying the discovery rule the court will balance the hardship on the plaintiff caused by the bar of his suit against the increased burden of a defendant to obtain proof of his defense after the passage of time. [Citations.] The hardship imposed upon a party who is unaware he has an actionable injury until after the limitations period has run is much more severe than that imposed upon a party who knows, or reasonably should know, he has suffered an actionable injury but does not learn the identity of the person who injured him until after the limitations period has passed. The former is in no position to take advantage of the limitations period in which to determine the identity of the party injuring him. The latter, however, knows he has a cause of action, has the time given by the limitations period to attempt to learn the identity of the person who injured him and is not in the position of being barred before ever knowing of his right to sue." (Emphasis in ori”
2 later decisions 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.