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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Burgessgreen2 sentences2014Ronald’s brief cites to numerous cases holding that common-law contribution rights as to property held in joint tenancy apply to spouses as well as to unmarried parties. ¶ 25 However, a husband and wife may, “by agreement, exclude the operation of law and determine for themselves what rights they will have in each other’s property.” In re Marriage of Burgess, 123 Ill. 2013Ronald's brief cites to numerous cases holding that common-law contribution rights as to property held in joint tenancy apply to spouses as well as to unmarried parties. 9 No. 1-12-0550 ¶ 25 However, a husband and wife may, "by agreement, exclude the operation of law and determine for themselves what rights they will have in each other's property." In re Marriage of Burgess, 123 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Petersengreen2 sentences2009See Petersen, 319 Ill. 2009See Petersen, 319 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Austin D.green2 sentences2009See Austin D., 358 Ill. 2009See Austin D., 358 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Custody of Petersongreen2 sentences2004Based on the judicial construction of "physical custody" for purposes of that section (see In re Custody of Peterson, 112 Ill.2d 48, 53-54 , 96 Ill.Dec. 690 , 491 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (1986) ("the standing requirement under section 601(b)(2) should not turn on who is in physical possession, so to speak, of the child at the moment of filing the petition for custody")), the court concluded petitioners lacked standing. 2004Based on the judicial construction of "physical custody" for purposes of that section (see In re Custody of Peterson, 112 Ill.2d 48, 53-54 , 96 Ill.Dec. 690 , 491 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (1986) ("the standing requirement under section 601(b)(2) should not turn on who is in physical possession, so to speak, of the child at the moment of filing the petition for custody")), the court concluded petitioners lacked standing. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In RE ESTATE OF ROY v. Roy
green
2 sentences2003In a written order, the trial court indicated that it based its decision on an application of the law in Estate of Roy, 265 Ill.App.3d 99 , 202 Ill.Dec. 492 , 637 N.E.2d 1228 (1994). 2003In a written order, the trial court indicated that it based its decision on an application of the law in Estate of Roy, 265 Ill.App.3d 99 , 202 Ill.Dec. 492 , 637 N.E.2d 1228 (1994). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
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.