99 Ill. App. 3d 254 - Kerouac v. Kerouac’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2022
16 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 48 Ill. 2d 71 - Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · 48 Ill. 2d 1 - Ullman v. Wolverine Insurance · 49 Ill. 2d 449 - Barnes v. Powell · 51 Ill. 2d 478 - Grace v. Howlett · 44 Ill. 2d 127 - Smiley v. Estate of Toney
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[N]o policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be renewed or delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in Section 7 — 203 of The Illinois Vehicle Code for the protection of persons injured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 755a(l).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As to this particular plaintiff, because she was excluded from the liability coverage of the policy, the automobile was not an insured automobile and the driver was not an insured motorist, notwithstanding that as to all others the automobile and the driver may have been insured. Because no liability insurance was applicable to the plaintiff at the time of the accident, her uninsured motorist coverage necessarily became effective in light of the legislative mandate. Our conclusion is in accord with Bowsher v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 244 Ore. 549 , 419 P.2d 606 , and with the practice of construing limitations on coverage liberally in favor of the policyholder.” (Emphasis added.) 49 Ill. 2d 449, 454 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he intent of the legislature was that the uninsured motorist coverage would protect an insured generally against injuries caused by motorists who are uninsured, and by hit-and-run motorists, and that this would complement the liability coverage. The distinction that the uninsured motorist was the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger, rather than the driver of another automobile, is not decisive.” ( 49 Ill. 2d 449, 454 , 275 N.E.2d 377, 379-80 .)”
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.