73 Ill. 2d 78 - Hupp v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Duckworth v. Franzen (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 416 - Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital (1986)
12 federal appellate · 108 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on 4 Ill. 2d 342 - Orlicki v. McCarthy · Hupp v. Gray · 32 Ill. 2d 40 - Roth v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. · The Gates Rubber Company, a Corporation v. Usm Corporation, a Corporation · 72 Ill. 2d 161 - Arnold Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““During the pendency of this case in the appellate court, the legislature amended section 24 by substituting the words ‘the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff’ for the words ‘if the plaintiff is nonsuited’ (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 83, par. 24a). Consequently, as the statute now reads, its protection would now be unavailable to plaintiff, since his action was [involuntarily] nonsuited and not voluntarily dismissed.” ( 73 Ill. 2d 78, 82 , 382 N.E.2d 1211, 1213 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n amendment to a limitation statute shortening the period within which an action must be filed will be applied retroactively to actions not as yet commenced, provided there is a reasonable time after the effective date of the amendment within which to bring the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““§24. In the actions specified in this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if judgment is given for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal; or if there is a verdict for the plaintiff and, upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, the judgment is given against the plaintiff; or the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such suit, the plaintiff, his heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or given against the plaintiff, or after the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 83, par. 24a.)”
1 later decision 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.