89 Ill. 2d 205 - Colson v. Stieg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 63 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the defendant in our case would have published the statement in question to the public in general, it is possible that the plaintiff would not have had sufficient access to the channels of communication to overcome or offset the damaging effect of defendant’s statement. We make no assessment *** of the use of the New York Times privilege in such a situation.” (Colson, 89 Ill. 2d at 214 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 205 Ill. App. 3d 769 - Rosner v. Field Enterprises, Inc. · 155 Ill. App. 3d 309 - Davis v. Keystone Printing Service, Inc.

2. ““The allegations ***, in addition to the many irrelevant charges, alleged that the statement was made by the defendant ‘knowing it to be false.’ Also contained within the allegation is the charge that the statement was made maliciously, wilfully and intentionally. In Coursey v. Greater Niles Township Publishing Corp. (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 257, 266 , and in Weber v. Woods (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 122 , it was held that an allegation that the facts asserted were false and that the statement was made knowing it to be false were sufficient allegations. Although we do not cite the allegations contained in this complaint as a model, we find that the elements necessary *** have been sufficiently alleged.” Colson, 89 Ill. 2d at 215-16 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 171 Ill. App. 3d 691 - Mittelman v. Witous

3. ““ ‘Said statement was made by Defendant knowing it to be false, without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, maliciously, wilfully, intentionally and without reasonable justification or excuse with the intention of destroying Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation, causing Plaintiff to be denied tenure, to be terminated from employment with Northern Illinois University effective May, 1979 and interfering with his ability to be suitably employed in the future. Said statement caused Plaintiff extensive mental and physical anguish and financial loss.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 Ill. App. 3d 427 - Davis v. Keystone Printing Service, Inc.