11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Winnetka Bank v. Mandasgreen1 sentence1995App. 3d 373, 387-88 , 559 N.E.2d 961, 969-70 (Statute of Frauds defense). | 1 | 1 |
Roy v. Coynegreen1 sentence1995See Roy v. Coyne (1994), 259 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Mid-Town Petroleum, Inc. v. Dinegreen1 sentence1986See Mid-Town Petroleum, Inc. v. Dine (1979), 72 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Haas v. Cravattagreen1 sentence1986See Haas v. Cravatta (1979), 71 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Moore
green
2 sentences2020App. 3d 362 (1979) (executed oral employment contract withstands Statute of Frauds defense, especially where all that remains to be done by the other party is payment of money); Thomas v. Moore, 55 Ill. 1981App. 3d 362 , 386 N.E.2d 148 (executed oral employment contract withstands Statute of Frauds defense, especially where all that remains to be done by the other party is payment of money); Thomas v. Moore (1977), 55 Ill. | 2 | 1981–2020 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences1997People v. Rodriguez , 187 Ill. 1997People v. Rodriguez, 187 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1997It is established that, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 1430 (S.D. 1997It is established that "What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1430 (S.D. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Brown & Shinitzky Chartered v. Dentinger
green
1 sentence1989App. 3d 517, 519-20 , 455 N.E.2d 128, 129-30 .) For purposes of this determination, we hold simply that before Vermeil can raise the Statute of Frauds defense, he must first succeed in his defense against the allegation that he committed constructive fraud upon the bank. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Schuman v. Pekin House Restaurant & Lounge
green
1 sentence1987App. 3d 532, 535 , 430 N.E.2d 145 .) In the instant case, Williams contends that the doctrine of equitable estoppel negates Jersey’s Statute of Frauds claim. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wysocki v. Bedrosian
green
1 sentence1987That the party who detrimentally relied upon the waiver of strict compliance with the original written contract and upon the oral modification need not have been induced by the other party is evident in Wysocki v. Bedrosian (1984), 124 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hartke v. Conn
neutral
1 sentence1986App. 3d 96, 100 , 429 N.E.2d 885 .) Thus, in order to meet its burden under the Statute of Frauds defense, ACS need only have shown that all of the writings that the parties exchanged, taken together, show that a contract was made and the terms of that contract. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Crum v. Krol
green
1 sentence1981This court found that since the defendant was the party to be charged “he cannot use his brothers’ failure to approve and sign the documents as the basis for his Statute of Frauds defense.” ( 99 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hall v. Humphrey-Lake Corp.
green
1 sentence1981(Hall v. Humphrey Lake Corp. (1975), 29 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Mapes v. Kalva Corp.
green
1 sentence1981App. 3d 362 , 386 N.E.2d 148 (executed oral employment contract withstands Statute of Frauds defense, especially where all that remains to be done by the other party is payment of money); Thomas v. Moore (1977), 55 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.