93 Ill. 2d 266 - Lynch v. Precision MacHine Shop, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 142 Ill. App. 3d 584 - Taylor v. City of Beardstown (1986), 117 Ill. App. 3d 1 - Guebard v. Jabaay (1983)
17 federal appellate · 70 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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · 83 Ill. 2d 388 - Kolakowski v. Voris · 51 Ill. 2d 143 - Schatz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · 32 Ill. 2d 446 - Metz v. Central Illinois Electric & Gas Co. · 79 Ill. 2d 1 - Spidle v. Steward
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘This element usually is stated as meaning that the defendant must be in “exclusive control” of the instrumentality which has caused the accident. Such control of course does serve effectively to focus any negligence upon the defendant; but the strict and literal application of the formula has led some courts to ridiculous conclusions ***. Of course this is wrong: it loses sight of the real purpose of the reasoning process in an attempt to reduce it to a fixed, mechanical and rigid rule. “Control,” if it is not to be pernicious and misleading, must be a very flexible term. It must be enough that the defendant has the right or power of control, and the opportunity to exercise it ***. It is enough that he is under a duty which he cannot delegate to another ***.’ (Prosser, Torts sec. 39, at 219-20 (4th ed. 1971).)” (Emphasis added.) (Lynch, 93 Ill. 2d at 273 , 443 N.E.2d at 572 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘It is not, however, necessary to the inference that the defendant have such exclusive control; and exclusive control is merely one way of proving his responsibility. He may be responsible, and the inference may be drawn against him, where he shares the control with another ***. He may be responsible where he is under a duty to the plaintiff which he cannot delegate to another ***. He may be responsible where he is under a duty to control the conduct of a third person ***. *** The essential question becomes one of whether the probable cause is one which the defendant was under a duty to the plaintiff to anticipate or guard against.’ ” Lynch, 93 Ill. 2d at 273-74 , quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §328D, Explanatory Notes, Comment g (1965).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As has been repeatedly observed by this court, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine allows the trier of fact to draw an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence. To avail itself of the doctrine, plaintiff (in our case, counterclaimant) must demonstrate that he was injured (1) in an occurrence that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence, (2) by an instrumentality or agency under the management or control of the defendant (here, counterdefendant), and (3) under circumstances indicating the injury was not due to any voluntary act or neglect on the part of the one claiming the doctrine.” (Lynch, 93 Ill. 2d at 272 , 443 N.E.2d at 572 .)”
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.