Martinez v. Badis’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Nieto (2000), Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp. (1996)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 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 90 Ill. App. 3d 817 - ABC Trans National Transport, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forwarders, Inc. · Davis v. Margolis · 139 Ill. 2d 399 - Barth v. Reagan · Metropolitan Gas Repair Service, Inc. v. Kulik · 39 Colo. App. 360 - Russell v. First Am. Mtg. Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n every action for damages or indemnity based upon the alleged professional negligence of ... a licensed professional, the plaintiffs or complainant’s attorney shall file with the court a certificate of review for each ... licensed professional named as a party ... within sixty days after the service of complaint, counterclaim, or cross claim against such person unless the court determines that a longer period is necessary for good cause shown.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts look first and foremost to the language of the statute itself to discern legislative intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Bergen · People v. Seader“A certificate of review shall be executed by the attorney for the plaintiff or complainant declaring: (I) That the attorney has consulted a person who has expertise in the area of the alleged negligent conduct; and (II)That the professional who has been consulted pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) has reviewed the known facts relevant to the allegations of negligent conduct and based on such facts, has concluded that the filing of the claim, counterclaim, or cross claim does not lack substantial justification within the meaning of section 13-17-102(4). 5”
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.