98 Ill. 2d 166 - Nibco, Inc. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 113 Ill. 2d 294 - State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill (1986), 136 Ill. App. 3d 35 - Village of Lakemoor v. First Bank of Oak Park (1985)
36 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 37 Ill. 2d 352 - Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. · 18 Ill. App. 3d 560 - Ingram v. MFA Insurance · Marnik v. Cusack · 12 Ill. App. 3d 235 - Harris v. American Legion John T. Shelton Post No. 838 · 78 Ill. App. 3d 552 - Clinton Co. v. Eggleston
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, the recital in the return that Joe Johnson was a member of defendant’s household was presumptively not within the personal knowledge of the officer. This recital could be denied by the affidavit of the defendant, as it was. If the affidavit were not contradicted, or if it were unrebutted, that part of the affidavit attacking those recitals in the return which are beyond the personal knowledge of the officer would be taken as true. Here, however, Nibco did not rely solely on the return of the summons. When the question of the validity of the recitals in the return was raised, evidence of the deputy who made the service was presented in support of those recitals. The question of fact was thus presented to the trial court as to whether the person whom the deputy served was a member of the defendant’s household on the date that service was made. The deputy gave evidence in support of his conclusion that Joe Johnson was a proper person upon whom substitute service could be made. *** Defendant Johnson offered no evidence to contradict or rebut the deputy’s testimony. The trial court had, in support of her position, only the bare assertion contained in her affidavit, which of course, is not subject to cross-examination. The weight to be given to the assertions in the affidavit and to the testimony of the deputy must be peculiarly within the province of the trial court.” ( 98 Ill. 2d 166, 172-73 .)”
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.