68 Ill. App. 3d 17 - Nestle Co. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Labor dispute. An individual shall be ineligible for benefits for any week with respect to which it is found that his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory establishment, or other premises at which he is or was last employed. ***. This Section shall not apply if it is shown that (A) the individual is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work and (B) he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute; provided, that a lockout by the employer or an individual’s failure to cross a picket line *** shall not, in itself, be deemed to be participation by him in the labor dispute.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 135 Ill. App. 3d 685 - Wyman-Gordon Co. v. Bernardi

2. ““Though both the smaller union and the company had found it convenient to wait until the larger union achieved a contract before beginning their negotiations, and in the past the economic terms of both unions’ contracts had been the same, the operating engineers had no enforceable right to the benefits obtained by the machinists. The mere expectancy of better economic terms in their own new contract upon conclusion of the machinists’ strike did not give the operating engineers a direct interest in the machinists’ labor dispute. (See Shell Oil Co. v. Cummins, 7 Ill. 2d 329 ,131 N.E.2d64 (1955).) At the most, this record reveals an indirect interest in the outcome of the machinists’ strike; that is not sufficient for the denial of benefits. See Outboard, Marine ir Manufacturing Co. v. Gordon, 403 Ill. 523 , 87 N.E.2d 610 (1949).” ( 68 Ill. App. 3d 17, 20 , 385 N.E.2d 793, 796 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 Ill. App. 3d 204 - General Motors Corp. v. Bowling

3. ““[W]e are not bound to give the same measure of deference to an administrative agency’s construction of a statute that we give to its findings of fact. While we might affirm a factual conclusion as not against the manifest weight of the evidence though we would have reached the opposite conclusion, we cannot let stand a decision based upon an erroneous construction of a statute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 68 Ill. App. 3d 264 - Granite City Steel Division of National Steel Corp. v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor