88 Ill. 2d 444 - Murphy v. Urso’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 211 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 282 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 186 Ill. 2d 127 - Employers Insurance v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust (1999), 92 Ill. 2d 388 - Conway v. Country Casualty Insurance Co. (1982)
22 federal appellate · 211 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 64 Ill. 2d 187 - Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers · 74 Ill. 2d 132 - Thornton v. Paul · 57 Ill. 2d 376 - Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co. · 43 Ill. App. 2d 184 - Sims Ex Rel. Ruark v. Illinois National Casualty Co. · 87 Ill. App. 3d 446 - La Rotunda v. Royal Globe Insurance 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 282 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An insurer taking the position that a complaint potentially alleging coverage is not covered by a policy which provides that the insurer has the right and duty to defend any claims brought against the insured cannot simply refuse to defend the insured. It must defend the suit under a reservation of rights or seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage. If the insurer fails to do this, it is estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage ... because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To best defend the preschool, it would try to show that [the driver] did not have permission to use the bus at the time of the accident. *** This would sever any connection between the preschool and [the driver], place all the liability on [the driver], and exonerate the school. But to best serve [the driver], Travelers had to try to show that he did have permission to use the bus. This would spread the liability to the schools. *** The interests of [the school] and [the driver] in how the suit was to be defended were diametrically opposed, creating an ethical conflict for Travelers, which was charged with providing a full and vigorous defense to each. [Citation.] In order to defend either the schools or [the driver], Travelers had to resolve the conflict and pick a strategy of defense. How could it do so for one without harming the other?” Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““To best defend the preschool, it would try to show that [the driver] did not have permission to use the bus at the time of the accident. *** This would sever any connection between the preschool and [the driver], place all the liability on [the dirver], and exonerate the school. But to best serve [the driver], Travelers had to try to show that he did have permission to use the bus. This would spread the liability to the schools.” Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453 .”
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.