People v. Davis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that section 16 — 3 did not apply to the defendants’ conduct of diverting the labor of city employees to their own purposes because section 16 — 3 is “intended to protect businesses from the unscrupulous practices of prospective customers”
• holding that section 16–3 did not apply to the defendants’ conduct of diverting the labor of city employees to their own purposes because section 16–3 is “intended to protect businesses from the unscrupulous practices of prospective customers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Perry
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2007-02-16· cited 553×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 1995-07-24· cited 19×
• People v. Perry
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2005-10-07· cited 3×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Harriss
  Supreme Court· 1954-06-07· cited 1,827×
• Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. City of Chicago
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1974-11-26· cited 33×
• People v. Sangster
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1982-06-01· cited 27×
• People v. Weber
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1985-05-02· cited 18×
• People v. Zakarian
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1984-02-14· cited 15×
• People v. Sangster
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1981-04-22· cited 13×
• People v. Adams
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1978-09-06· cited 12×
• Roth v. Department of Public Aid
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1982-09-17· cited 12×
• People v. Dillon
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1968-03-18· cited 6×
• State Farm Life Insurance v. Town & Country Associates
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1980-06-20· cited 6×