69 Ill. App. 3d 227 - Mendelson v. Feingold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant also relies upon cases which have upheld the granting of summary judgment where facts have been established entitling them to summary judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] While defendant here did initially move for summary judgment, the trial court did not rule upon that motion and it is not before us. We must note, however, that had the court granted summary judgment without first permitting plaintiff to depose defendant and the two treating physicians such judgment would necessarily be set aside as erroneous.” 69 Ill. App. 3d 227, 235 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 101 Ill. App. 3d 264 - Goldstein v. Kantor · 86 Ill. App. 3d 347 - Buck v. Alton Memorial Hospital

2. “Pursuant to the Civil Practice Act [citation] discovery in civil cases in Illinois is governed by the rules of the supreme court, which apply uniformly to medical malpractice and all other types of civil actions. Supreme court rules 201 through 219 [citations] describe the methods by which relevant information may be obtained in a pending action, by depositions, interrogatories, discovery or inspection of documents or property and physical or mental examinations or persons. * * * None of the rules regulating discovery, however, authorizes the court to require a party to provide a witness, furnish a document or fashion some object (none of which exist) for the benefit of an adverse party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 288 Ill. App. 3d 860 - In Re Interest of Rv

3. “"The effect of the series of orders entered by the trial court was to require plaintiffs to obtain a medical expert witness who would state in writing that defendant was negligent in his treatment of Mr. Mendelson before plaintiffs would be allowed to proceed with their own discovery. Such orders are without authority under the discovery rules and the Civil Practice Act and effectively precluded the plaintiffs from establishing any part of the expert testimony which might be required in the trial of this case through testimony of defendant or the treating physicians. See Plost v. Louis Weiss Memorial Hospital (1978), 62 Ill. App.3d 253 , 378 N.E.2d 1176 ." ( 69 Ill. App.3d 227, 234 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 86 Ill. App. 3d 347 - Buck v. Alton Memorial Hospital