priority rule (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

priority rule in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2015 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewisgreen
scotus · 1916 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965
1 sentence

1965Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 US 440, 447 (1915); 20 Am Jur2d Courts, § 131; 21 CJS Courts, § 492, pp 751-755.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
People Ex Rel. Village of Long Grove v. Village of Buffalo Grove green
illappct · 1987
2 sentences

1993Village of Long Grove v. Village of Buffalo Grove (1987), 160 Ill.App.3d 455, 459 , 111 Ill.Dec. 965 , 513 N.E.2d 408 ).

1993Village of Long Grove v. Village of Buffalo Grove (1987), 160 Ill.

21993–1993
BMO Harris Bank v. Wolverine Properties, LLC green
illappct · 2015
1 sentence

2015“Upon the entry of the judgment of foreclosure, all rights of a party in foreclosure against the mortgagor provided for in the judgment of foreclosure *** shall -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 140921 be secured by a lien on the mortgaged real estate, which lien shall have the same priority as the claim to which the judgment relates and shall be terminated upon confirmation of [the] judicial sale.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1506(i)(1) (West 2014).

12015–2015
City of Countryside v. Village of La Grange green
ill · 1962
1 sentence

1988(City of Countryside, 24 Ill. 2d at 166 .) The effect of these rulings is to allow a municipality which has initiated an annexation proceeding to proceed in a logical and orderly manner to annex certain territory, assuming that it acts promptly and in accordance with the statute.

11988–1988
Hozz v. Varga green
calctapp · 1958
2 sentences

1985While it is true that an award of attorney fees is proper to the party who had succeeded in procuring the receivership in order to protect the fund (Hozz v. Varga (1958), 166 Cal. App. 2d 539, 543-44 , 333 P.2d 113, 117 ; 75 C.J.S.

1985While it is true that an award of attorney fees is proper to the party who had succeeded in procuring the receivership in order to protect the fund (Hozz v. Varga (1958), 166 Cal. App. 2d 539, 543-44 , 333 P.2d 113, 117 ; 75 C.J.S.

11985–1985
In re Marriage of Alder green
illappct · 1981
1 sentence

1984App. 3d 525 , 424 N.E.2d 763 .) He asserts that the Cook County court has exclusive jurisdiction to modify its prior custody determination or, alternatively, that even assuming concurrent jurisdiction in the Lake County court, the Cook County court retains jurisdiction under the priority principle.

11984–1984
Decker v. Commonwealth green
kyctapp · 1962
1 sentence

1965Brinkerhoff v. Huntley, 223 Ill App 591, 602 (2d Dist 1921); Riddle v. Howard, (Ky App, 1962) 357 SW2d 705 , 708; Retterer v. Retterer, (Ohio App, 1935) 32 NE2d 513, 518 .

11965–1965
Retterer v. Retterer neutral
ohioctapp · 1935
1 sentence

1965Brinkerhoff v. Huntley, 223 Ill App 591, 602 (2d Dist 1921); Riddle v. Howard, (Ky App, 1962) 357 SW2d 705 , 708; Retterer v. Retterer, (Ohio App, 1935) 32 NE2d 513, 518 .

11965–1965
Marshall v. New York green
scotus · 1920
1 sentence

1939Marshall v. State of New York, supra; Lewis v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, supra; People v. Oregon Savings Bank, supra. How can it be said that the Deposit act of 1919, which requires the State Treasurer to exact a pledge of securities for State deposits, extends the powers of banks, when the priority of the claim of the State already exists over all the bank’s assets to repay such deposits?

11939–1939

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1940–2022) OH 10 (1922–2017) NY 10 (1926–2015) MI 8 (1988–2024) IL 8 (1939–2015) CO 7 (1963–2015) PA 6 (1899–2022) NJ 6 (1933–2013) NM 5 (2010–2013) WA 5 (1942–2024) TX 4 (1951–2015) DC 4 (1997–2024) MN 3 (1920–2013) MD 3 (1982–2024) RI 3 (1980–2020) IN 3 (1941–1996) KS 3 (1970–2014) FL 2 (2006–2006) GA 2 (1939–1941) WY 2 (1989–1991) AL 2 (1916–1931) AZ 2 (1969–2023) CT 2 (1990–2020) MS 2 (1991–2023) SD 2 (1927–2003) MO 2 (2009–2016) NC 2 (1914–1914)

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