Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
76 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jameson Realty Group v. Kostinergreen2 sentences2024“It is a general rule of contract law that, for reasons of public policy, a liquidated damages clause which operates as a penalty for nonperformance or as a threat to secure performance will not be enforced.” Jameson Realty Group v. Kostiner, 351 Ill. 2024Three elements must be met to validate a liquidated damages clause: “(1) the parties intended to agree in advance to the settlement of damages that might arise from the breach; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was reasonable at the time of contracting, bearing some relation to the damages which might be sustained; and (3) actual damages would be uncertain in amount and difficult to prove.” Id. | 9 | 12 |
Penske Truck Leasing Co. v. Chemetco, Inc.green2 sentences2025A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty.’ ” Penske Truck Leasing Co. v. Chemetco, Inc., 311 Ill. App. 3d 447, 454 (2000) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356 (1981)). ¶ 176 This court has identified three elements that must be met to enforce a liquidated damages clause: “(1) the parties intended to agree in advance to the settlement of damages that might arise from the breach; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was reasonable at the time of contracting, bearing some relation to the damages which might be sustai 2022Although parties to a contract may agree in advance to “liquidated” damages as an estimate of the damages that might be sustained in the event of breach, “a liquidated damages clause which operates as a penalty for nonperformance or as a threat to secure performance will not be enforced.” Jameson Realty Group v. Kostiner, 351 Ill. App. 3d 416, 423 (2004); see also Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. v. Chemetco, Inc., 311 Ill. App. 3d 447, 454 (2000) (“ ‘A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty.’ ”) (quoting Restatement (Second) o | 7 | 8 |
Med+ Plus Neck & Back Pain Center v. Noffsingergreen2 sentences2014App. 3d 416, 423 (2004) (citing Med+Plus Neck & Back Pain Center v. Noffsinger, 311 Ill. 2004The uncertainty of actual damages at the time of contract, a fact that must be true for a liquidated damages clause to be valid and enforceable (see Noffsinger, 311 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Grossinger Motorcorp, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2011The court stated: “On its face, the optional nature of the liquidated damages clause shows that the parties never intended to establish a specific sum to constitute damages in the event of a breach.” Id. at 750 . 2011The court stated: "On its face, the optional nature of the liquidated damages clause shows that the parties never intended to establish a specific sum to constitute damages in the event of a breach." Id. at 750 . | 2 | 14 |
Warnock v. Karm Winand & Pattersongreen2 sentences2022Id. at 366. ¶ 25 The appellate court found that, while the filing of the buyer’s lawsuit may have alerted the plaintiffs to the possibility that the letter agreements were incorrectly drafted and motivated plaintiffs to hire new counsel, plaintiffs had no actionable damages prior to the adverse judgment from the circuit court, which found the letter agreements were drafted in contravention of Illinois law. 2022Id. at 366. ¶ 25 The appellate court found that, while the filing of the buyer’s lawsuit may have alerted the plaintiffs to the possibility that the letter agreements were incorrectly drafted and motivated plaintiffs to hire new counsel, plaintiffs had no actionable damages prior to the adverse judgment from the circuit court, which found the letter agreements were drafted in contravention of Illinois law. | 2 | 6 |
Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. Energy Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2023“A liquidated damages clause is the agreement of the parties as to the amount of damages which must be paid in the event of default.” Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. Energy Cooperative, Inc., 122 Ill. App. 3d 940, 947 (1984). 2004The Northern Illinois Gas court found that “[t]he parties agreed to a liquidated sum [as] their damages in the event of default.” Northern Illinois Gas, 122 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
Lake River Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Carborundum Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2022Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. 2021) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant.”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 (2021) (“If 2021Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. Nov. 2021 Update) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 | 2 | 4 |
Bauer v. Sawyergreen2 sentences1992See Bauer v. Sawyer (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 351, 358 , 134 N.E.2d 329 .” Morris, 174 Ill. 1992See Bauer v. Sawyer (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 351, 358 , 134 N.E.2d 329 .” Morris, 174 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
NPS, LLC v. Minihanegreen2 sentences2022Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. 2021) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant.”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 (2021) (“If 2021Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. Nov. 2021 Update) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 | 2 | 2 |
Barrie School v. Patchgreen2 sentences2022Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. 2021) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant.”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 (2021) (“If 2021Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 769 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Illinois law); see also NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 886 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Mass. 2008); Barrie School v. Patch, 933 A.2d 382, 391-93 (Md. Ct. App. 2007); 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:31 (4th ed. Nov. 2021 Update) (“Since the effect of a stipulated damages provision is to substitute a predetermined amount for actual damages sustained by the party entitled to relief, the existence of an enforceable liquidated damages provision has the effect of making the mitigation of damages irrelevant”); 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 541 | 2 | 2 |
Clifton, Gunderson & Co. v. Richtergreen2 sentences2014See Clifton, Gunderson & Co. v. Richter, 158 Ill. 2014See Clifton, Gunderson & Co. v. Richter, 158 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Bamberg v. Griffingreen2 sentences2010Bamberg v. Griffin, 76 Ill. 2010Bamberg v. Griffin, 76 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Zimmermann v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). 2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Royer v. Cartergreen2 sentences2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). 2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Hickox v. Bellgreen2 sentences2000App. 3d 976, 987 , 552 N.E.2d 1133, 1140-41 (1990) (“a liquidated damages clause will be given effect if it is difficult to determine the actual damages which would result in event of breach”). 2000App. 3d 976, 987-88 , 552 N.E.2d 1133, 1140-41 (1990) ("a liquidated damages clause will be given effect if it is difficult to determine the actual damages which would result in event of breach"). | 2 | 2 |
Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co.green2 sentences2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). 2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Sorce v. Rinehartgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). 2000See, e.g. , Royer v. Carter , 37 Cal. 2d 544, 546-47 , 233 P.2d 539, 541 (1951) (Traynor, J.); Kegerreis v. Citizens Trust Co. , 52 Ohio App. 412, 413-14 , 3 N.E.2d 896, 897 (1936); Sorce v. Rinehart , 69 Wis. 2d 631, 637 , 230 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (1975); Zimmerman v. Thompson . 16 Wis. 2d 74, 76 , 114 N.W.2d 116, 117 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago v. Thorpegreen2 sentences2011In holding the provision unenforceable, the court pointed to the option to seek actual damages, which “reflects that the parties did not have the mutual intention to stipulate to a fixed amount as their liquidated damages.” Catholic Charities, 318 Ill. 2011In holding the provision unenforceable, the court pointed to the option to seek actual damages, which "reflects that the 9 1-10-0979 parties did not have the mutual intention to stipulate to a fixed amount as their liquidated damages." Catholic Charities, 318 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Morris v. Floresgreen2 sentences1993The contract here did not provide that the seller, at his option, could elect not to accept liquidated damages and pursue all other legal remedies. *** *** As discussed above, the liquidated damages clause in this case did not prevent plaintiffs from seeking remedies other than money damages, such as injunctive relief.” Morris, 174 Ill. 1993The contract contained a liquidated damages clause which provided: “Such monies shall be deemed to represent damages sustained, provided, however, that this provision with the respect to liquidated damages shall not be the exclusive remedy of Seller, and Seller shall retain all monies deposited without prejudice to his other remedies.” Morris, 174 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Pav-Saver Corp. v. Vasso Corp.green2 sentences2022Pav-Saver Corp. v. Vasso Corp., 143 Ill. App. 3d 1013, 1019 (1986). 2004A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty." See Penske Truck Leasing Co. v. Chemetco, Inc., 311 Ill.App.3d 447, 454 , 725 N.E.2d 13 , 244 Ill.Dec. 218 (2000); Pav-Saver Corp. v. Vasso Corp., 143 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1018-19 , 97 Ill.Dec. 760 , 493 N.E.2d 423 . (1986). | 1 | 2 |
| First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| ICD Publications, Inc. v. Gittlitzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stone v. City of Arcolagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kalenka v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
green
2 sentences2025As the Kinkel court succinctly notes: “One party to a contract may not unilaterally modify a contract term—whether it is an arbitration clause, a disclaimer of incidental and consequential damages, a liquidated damages clause, or any other - 16 - term—after the contractual relationship between the parties has ended and the original contract is the subject of a dispute.” Id. at 14-15 . 2019Id. at 22 . ¶ 70 The terms in Betterway’s home repair contract, including the liquidated damages clause and the attorney fees provision, are nonnegotiable and presented in fine print in language that the average consumer might not fully understand. | 7 | 2008–2025 |
Hayden v. Keepper-Nagel, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987“It is axiomatic that a predetermined damages clause will be given effect if the actual damages are difficult to ascertain and the liquidated damages provision is a reasonable estimate of the damages which would actually result from a breach of the contract. [Citations.] The courts will also uphold a liquidated damages clause, even absent any proof of actual damages, where the parties have agreed to have the damages provided in the contract ascertained on a particular basis and such provision is reasonable at the time of contracting.” Hayden v. Keepper-Nagel Inc. (1978), 62 Ill. 1981But a party seeking to enforce a liquidated damages clause does not need to present evidence of his actual damages. ( Hayden v. Keepper-Nagel, Inc. (1978), 62 Ill. | 4 | 1981–1989 |
Siegel v. Levy Organization Development Co.
green
2 sentences2010“If the nondefaulting party chooses to reject the liquidated damages clause, he does not have the right to seek a greater measure of damages than the amount bargained for.” Siegel, 182 Ill. 2010The nondefaulting party may choose not to demand the “amount or remedy set forth in the liquidated damages clause,” but the failure to demand the contractual right “does not create rights greater than those bargained for.” Siegel, 182 Ill. | 3 | 1991–2010 |
Weiss v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences1990(Weiss v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1921), 300 Ill. 11, 16 , 132 N.E. 749, 751 ; Morris v. Flores (1988), 174 Ill. 1990(Weiss v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1921), 300 Ill. 11, 16 , 132 N.E. 749, 751 ; Morris v. Flores (1988), 174 Ill. | 3 | 1984–1990 |
Wise v. United States
green
2 sentences2014In finding a valid liquidated damages clause, the Seventh Circuit relied on Wise v. United States, 249 U.S. 361 (1919), which found that courts "'look with candor, if not with favor, upon such provisions in contracts when deliberately entered into between parties who have equality of opportunity for understanding and insisting upon their rights, as promoting prompt performance of contracts and because adjusting in advance, and amicably, matters the settlement of which through courts would often involve difficulty, uncertainty, delay and expense.'" Bethlehem Steel, 350 F.2d at 651 (quoting Wise 2014In finding a valid liquidated damages clause, the Seventh Circuit relied on Wise v. United States, 249 U.S. 361 (1919), which found that courts "'look with candor, if not with favor, upon such provisions in contracts when deliberately entered into between parties who have equality of opportunity for understanding and insisting upon their rights, as promoting prompt performance of contracts and because adjusting in advance, and amicably, matters the settlement of which through courts would often involve difficulty, uncertainty, delay and expense.'" Bethlehem Steel, 350 F.2d at 651 (quoting Wise | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2014In finding a valid liquidated damages clause, the Seventh Circuit relied on Wise v. United States, 249 U.S. 361 (1919), which found that courts "'look with candor, if not with favor, upon such provisions in contracts when deliberately entered into between parties who have equality of opportunity for understanding and insisting upon their rights, as promoting prompt performance of contracts and because adjusting in advance, and amicably, matters the settlement of which through courts would often involve difficulty, uncertainty, delay and expense.'" Bethlehem Steel, 350 F.2d at 651 (quoting Wise 2014In making this argument, Buyer relies on Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. City of Chicago, 350 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1965), which is the same case the trial court relied on in concluding that the liquidated damages clause here was enforceable. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Stevens v. Rooks Pitts and Poust
green
2 sentences2006Stevens, 289 Ill. 2006Stevens, 289 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Elliott v. State
neutral
2 sentences2004AAA Uniform, 81 S.W.3d at 138 . 2004AAA Uniform , 81 S.W.3d at 138 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Vrdolyak
green
2 sentences1997Since it has been held that the Code operates with the force of law (see In re Vrdolyak, 137 Ill. 2d 407, 422 , 560 N.E.2d 840 (1990)), subsection (b)(iii) would be unenforceable as a liquidated damages clause. 1997Since it has been held that the Code operates with the force of law (see In re Vrdolyak, 137 Ill. 2d 407, 422 , 560 N.E.2d 840 (1990)), subsection (b)(iii) would be unenforceable as a liquidated damages clause. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Brecker v. Furman green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| Stewart v. Mehrlust green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Devco Development Corp. v. Hooker Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991In Devco Development Corp., the contract between the buyer and the seller required the buyer to “deposit *** an irrevocable bank letter of credit in the amount of $200,000.” (Devco Development Corp., 518 So. 2d at 923 .) The contract also had a liquidated damages clause which made the following provision: “[I]n the event [the Buyer] defaults with respect to its obligations under this Contract, the *** Letter of Credit held by [the Seller] on this contract may be taken and kept by [the Seller] as full liquidated damages.” (Devco Development Corp., 518 So. 2d at 923 .) The trial court held that 1991In Devco Development Corp., the contract between the buyer and the seller required the buyer to “deposit *** an irrevocable bank letter of credit in the amount of $200,000.” (Devco Development Corp., 518 So. 2d at 923 .) The contract also had a liquidated damages clause which made the following provision: “[I]n the event [the Buyer] defaults with respect to its obligations under this Contract, the *** Letter of Credit held by [the Seller] on this contract may be taken and kept by [the Seller] as full liquidated damages.” (Devco Development Corp., 518 So. 2d at 923 .) The trial court held that | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| Builder's Concrete v. Faubel & Sons, Inc. green | 2 | 1978–1989 |
| H&M Driver Leasing Services, Unlimited, Inc. v. Champion International Corp. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| 1472 N. Milwaukee, LTD. v. Feinerman green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Monsen Engineering Co. v. Tami-Githens, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| FAIR LAWN BD. OF EDN. v. Fair Lawn Plaza Taxi, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Radloff v. Haase green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Xco International Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pacific Scientific Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Lefemine v. Baron green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Pruett v. La Salceda, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Heckmann v. Mid States Development Co. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Scofield v. Tompkins neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Wanous v. Balaco green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Weber v. Powers neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Smiley neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Robinson v. United States green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| General Insurance Co. of America v. Commerce Hyatt House green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Shelby v. Hankerson green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Galbraith v. Chicago Architectural Iron Works neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lu-Mi-Nus Signs, Inc. v. Jefferson Shoe Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Able & Associates, Inc. v. Orchard Hill Farms green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| United Order of American Bricklayers and Stone Masons Union No. 21 v. Thorleif Larsen and Son, Incorporated green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Allstate Insurance v. National Tea Co. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Farley v. Knight Light & Soda Fountain Co. neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Poppers v. Meagher neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.
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.