Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 SW2D 219 - Roselyn v. Fleishman

Roselyn v. Fleishman’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2013

14 state decisions

70199420002010decided

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 Anglim v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · 185 Ill. App. 3d 64 - Bart v. Union Oil Co. of California · Gassen v. Woy · 143 Ill. App. 3d 528 - Mazur v. Lutheran General Hospital · Kinser v. Elkadi

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

  1. “Judicial discretion is abused when the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration; if reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A trial court is vested with broad discretion as to its choice of a course of action during trial when the introduction of evidence is challenged on the ground that it has not been disclosed in response to appropriate discovery. In the sound exercise of that discretion it may admit or reject such evidence or determine and impose other appropriate sanctions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hen an expert witness has been deposed and he later changes his opinion before trial or bases that opinion on new or different facts from those disclosed in the deposition, it is the duty of the party intending to use the expert witness to disclose that new information to his adversary, thereby updating the responses made in the deposition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.