apportionment rule in Illinois

16 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ex Parte Fleming Foods of Alabama, Inc.green ala · 1994 · cited in 3 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010See Ex Parte Fleming Foods of Alabama, Inc v. Department of Revenue, 648 So. 2d 577, 579 (Ala. 1994) (“ ‘The provision of a credit in a use tax statute for sales or use tax paid to another state makes a use tax externally consistent, as much as such a provision avoids actual multiple taxation’ ” (emphasis in original)), quoting 68 Am. 2010See Ex Parte Fleming Foods of Alabama, Inc v. Department of Revenue, 648 So. 2d 577, 579 (Ala. 1994) (“ ‘The provision of a credit in a use tax statute for sales or use tax paid to another state makes a use tax externally consistent, as much as such a provision avoids actual multiple taxation’ ” (emphasis in original)), quoting 68 Am.	3	3
Dale N. Wise v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporationgreen ca8 · 1987 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Co., 815 F.2d 55, 58 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting with approval instruction stating that railroad is liable for pain or disability jury finds to be caused by the plaintiffs accident and that if it cannot separate the pain or disability caused by the preexisting condition from that caused by the accident, the railroad is liable for all of the pain or disability); Boyt v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 233 Mich. App. 179, 186 , 592 N.W.2d 426, 431 (1999) (trial court properly instructed jury according to federal law that if it found the injury to be an aggravation of a preexisting condition, it must atte 2002Co. , 815 F.2d 55, 58 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting with approval instruction stating that railroad is liable for pain or disability jury finds to be caused by the plaintiff’s accident and that if it cannot separate the pain or disability caused by the preexisting condition from that caused by the accident, the railroad is liable for all of the pain or disability); Boyt v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. , 233 Mich. App. 179, 186 , 592 N.W.2d 426, 431 (1999) (trial court properly instructed jury according to federal law that if it found the injury to be an aggravation of a preexisting condition, it must a	2	2
John Varhol v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, D/B/A Amtrakgreen ca7 · 1990 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Passenger Corp., 909 F.2d 1557, 1564-65 (7th Cir. 1990) (upholding the use of special interrogatories in conjunction with an apportionment instruction allowing damages only for the aggravation of a preexisting condition upon a finding that aggravation exists); Wise v. Union Pacific R.R. 2002Passenger Corp. , 909 F.2d 1557, 1564-65 (7th Cir. 1990) (upholding the use of special interrogatories in conjunction with an apportionment instruction allowing damages only for the aggravation of a preexisting condition upon a finding that aggravation exists); Wise v. Union Pacific R.R.	2	2
Boyt v. Grand Trunk Western Railroadgreen michctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Co., 815 F.2d 55, 58 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting with approval instruction stating that railroad is liable for pain or disability jury finds to be caused by the plaintiffs accident and that if it cannot separate the pain or disability caused by the preexisting condition from that caused by the accident, the railroad is liable for all of the pain or disability); Boyt v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 233 Mich. App. 179, 186 , 592 N.W.2d 426, 431 (1999) (trial court properly instructed jury according to federal law that if it found the injury to be an aggravation of a preexisting condition, it must atte 2002Co., 815 F.2d 55, 58 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting with approval instruction stating that railroad is liable for pain or disability jury finds to be caused by the plaintiffs accident and that if it cannot separate the pain or disability caused by the preexisting condition from that caused by the accident, the railroad is liable for all of the pain or disability); Boyt v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 233 Mich. App. 179, 186 , 592 N.W.2d 426, 431 (1999) (trial court properly instructed jury according to federal law that if it found the injury to be an aggravation of a preexisting condition, it must atte	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (19)

Case	Cited	Years
Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Topinka green illappct · 2003 2 sentences 2013Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Topinka, 344 Ill. 2013Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Topinka, 344 Ill.	2	2013–2013
Steven v. Sauer v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation green ca10 · 1997 2 sentences 2002Sauer, 106 F.3d at 1494-95 . 2002Sauer , 106 F.3d at 1494-95 .	2	2002–2002
May v. Nyman green illappct · 1972 2 sentences 1980App. 3d 580, 585 , 278 N.E.2d 97 , 101: “We are not unaware of the fact that our court can in certain cases follow the apportionment rule which provides that where a tract of land is subdivided into parts or lots, title to which becomes vested in different persons, none of the grantees is entitled to any preference over the others on discovery of an excess or deficiency in the quantity of land contained in the original tract; and the excess must be divided among or the deficiency must be borne by all of the parts or lots in proportion to their areas.” In May a plat showed that the frontage lin 1979App. 3d 580 , 278 N.E.2d 97 (3d Dist. 1972).) This is the so-called apportionment rule and its application necessarily requires the changing of the boundaries of all of the lots in the block to apportion the shortage or excess to each, thereby unsettling all lot lines.	2	1979–1980
Miller v. Commissioner of Revenue green minn · 1985 1 sentence 2009The Minnesota Supreme Court similarly rejected a circuit court’s apportionment of a use tax in Miller, 359 N.W.2d at 621 .	1	2009–2009
Gen. Motors v. CITY & CTY. OF DENVER green colo · 1999 1 sentence 2009If the use tax in question contains an effective credit, it is externally consistent. *** [W]e decline to impose an apportionment requirement where the responsible legislative body has chosen not to enact one.” General Motors, 990 P.2d at 72-73 .	1	2009–2009
Department of Transportation v. White green illappct · 1994 1 sentence 1996White, 264 Ill.	1	1996–1996
Neff v. George green ill · 1936 2 sentences 1983Before the apportionment rule can be applied, it is necessary to establish that it cannot be ascertained how the ineligible voters voted. ( Smoda v. Gallagher (1952), 412 Ill. 271, 274 ; Neff v. George (1936), 364 Ill. 306, 312 .) Therefore, not only does the petition fail to allege facts from which it can be ascertained how the alleged illegal votes are to be apportioned, 490 but also the petition fails to allege that it cannot be ascertained how any of the ineligible voters voted, a fact necessary to be established before the apportionment rule can be applied. 1983*(Smoda v. Gallagher (1952), 412 Ill. 271, 274 ; Neff v. George (1936), 364 Ill. 306, 312 .) Therefore, not only does the petition fail to allege facts from which it can be ascertained how the alleged illegal votes are to be apportioned, but also the petition fails to allege that it cannot be ascertained how any of the ineligible voters voted, a fact necessary to be established before the apportionment rule can be applied.	1	1983–1983
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Connelly green ill · 1983 2 sentences 1983The court went on to say that “[a]s for the apportionment requirement, ‘Schmidt did not lay down a per se rule that each time multiple properties are involved, allocation is required.’ [Citation.]” ( 97 Ill. 2d 242, 249 .) Finally, the court said “[t]he language of the Mechanics’ Liens Act, while explicitly authorizing the filing of liens against multiple parcels, nowhere requires an apportionment of the total claim among the specific parcels,” and “[w]e see no reason to establish filing requirements other than those provided in that act.” 97 Ill. 2d 242, 251 . 1983The court went on to say that “[a]s for the apportionment requirement, ‘Schmidt did not lay down a per se rule that each time multiple properties are involved, allocation is required.’ [Citation.]” ( 97 Ill. 2d 242, 249 .) Finally, the court said “[t]he language of the Mechanics’ Liens Act, while explicitly authorizing the filing of liens against multiple parcels, nowhere requires an apportionment of the total claim among the specific parcels,” and “[w]e see no reason to establish filing requirements other than those provided in that act.” 97 Ill. 2d 242, 251 .	1	1983–1983
Smoda v. Gallagher green ill · 1952 2 sentences 1983Before the apportionment rule can be applied, it is necessary to establish that it cannot be ascertained how the ineligible voters voted. ( Smoda v. Gallagher (1952), 412 Ill. 271, 274 ; Neff v. George (1936), 364 Ill. 306, 312 .) Therefore, not only does the petition fail to allege facts from which it can be ascertained how the alleged illegal votes are to be apportioned, 490 but also the petition fails to allege that it cannot be ascertained how any of the ineligible voters voted, a fact necessary to be established before the apportionment rule can be applied. 1983*(Smoda v. Gallagher (1952), 412 Ill. 271, 274 ; Neff v. George (1936), 364 Ill. 306, 312 .) Therefore, not only does the petition fail to allege facts from which it can be ascertained how the alleged illegal votes are to be apportioned, but also the petition fails to allege that it cannot be ascertained how any of the ineligible voters voted, a fact necessary to be established before the apportionment rule can be applied.	1	1983–1983
Barker-Lubin Co. v. Unknown Heirs or Devisees of Barker green illappct · 1982 1 sentence 1983As for the apportionment requirement, “Schmidt did not lay down a per se rule that each time multiple properties are involved, allocation is required.” (Barker-Lubin Co. v. Unknown Heirs or Devisees (1982), 106 Ill.	1	1983–1983
In Re Estate of Van Duser green illappct · 1974 2 sentences 1976It determined that the decision in In re Estate of Van Duser, 19 Ill. 1976It determined that the decision in In re Estate of Van Duser, 19 Ill.	1	1976–1976
Brelie v. Klafter neutral ill · 1931 2 sentences 1972(See Towner v. Tickner, 112 Ill. 217 ; Brelie v. Klafter, 342 Ill. 622 ; Binder v. Hejhal, supra.) However, in the light of all the evidence we do not believe that this is a case for the application of the apportionment rule, but if a deficiency in the quantity of land does in fact exist the law pertaining to sales for a sum in gross is applicable. 1972(See Towner v. Tickner, 112 Ill. 217 ; Brelie v. Klafter, 342 Ill. 622 ; Binder v. Hejhal, supra.) However, in the light of all the evidence we do not believe that this is a case for the application of the apportionment rule, but if a deficiency in the quantity of land does in fact exist the law pertaining to sales for a sum in gross is applicable.	1	1972–1972
Balzer v. Pyles green ill · 1932 2 sentences 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 . 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 .	1	1972–1972
Francois v. Maloney neutral ill · 1870 1 sentence 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 .	1	1972–1972
Martz v. Williams green ill · 1873 1 sentence 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 .	1	1972–1972
Towner v. Tickner neutral · 1885 2 sentences 1972(See Towner v. Tickner, 112 Ill. 217 ; Brelie v. Klafter, 342 Ill. 622 ; Binder v. Hejhal, supra.) However, in the light of all the evidence we do not believe that this is a case for the application of the apportionment rule, but if a deficiency in the quantity of land does in fact exist the law pertaining to sales for a sum in gross is applicable. 1972(See Towner v. Tickner, 112 Ill. 217 ; Brelie v. Klafter, 342 Ill. 622 ; Binder v. Hejhal, supra.) However, in the light of all the evidence we do not believe that this is a case for the application of the apportionment rule, but if a deficiency in the quantity of land does in fact exist the law pertaining to sales for a sum in gross is applicable.	1	1972–1972
Clayton v. Feig green · 1899 2 sentences 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 . 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 .	1	1972–1972
Nilson Bros. v. Kahn neutral ill · 1924 2 sentences 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 . 1972Francois v. Maloney, 56 Ill. 399 ; Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306 ; Clayton v. Feig, 179 Ill. 534 , 54 N.E. 149 ; Nilson Bros., Inc. v. Kahn, 314 Ill. 275 , 145 N.E. 340 ; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 , 183 N.E. 215 .	1	1972–1972
Lehman v. Hill green ill · 1953 1 sentence 1967In Lehman v. Hill, 414 Ill 173, 111 NE2d 120 , the Supreme Court recognized the apportionment rule of Neff and Smoda but refused to apportion for the reason that “here the particular votes claimed to be illegal could not be segregated, proved and exactly computed.” Here a like situation exists.	1	1967–1967

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 35 ILCS 105/3 (3) IL § 35 ILCS 120/1 (3) IL § 35 ILCS 120/2 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

FL 33 (1940–2026) NY 28 (1916–2017) CA 26 (1951–2024) CT 23 (1985–2011) KY 23 (1988–2026) PA 21 (1844–2017) IL 16 (1967–2013) AZ 11 (1969–2025) TX 11 (1941–2022) MI 11 (1929–2018) SC 11 (1941–2022) WA 10 (1999–2021) IA 9 (1991–2023) NJ 9 (1964–2018) NE 9 (1981–2026) ME 8 (1978–2016) MS 8 (1992–2020) MD 7 (1914–2013) UT 7 (2004–2025) GA 7 (1988–2020) MN 7 (1933–2018) AL 6 (1938–2010) IN 5 (1932–2009) OR 5 (1963–2017) MT 4 (1920–2003) MO 4 (1986–2005) WV 4 (1981–2024) KS 4 (1991–2010) OK 3 (1962–2021) SD 3 (1996–2010) MA 3 (1997–2013) OH 3 (2014–2019) AR 3 (1980–2021) AK 3 (1998–2022) DE 3 (1953–2018) WI 3 (1960–1970) CO 3 (1959–2025) LA 2 (1987–2004) WY 2 (1989–2001) VA 2 (1995–2019) DC 2 (1994–1998) NC 2 (1969–2006) NV 2 (1985–1985) NH 2 (1986–1999)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check