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 2 courts 1902–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Leadleygreen2 sentences2016See Brown v. Leadley, 81 Ill. 2016See Brown v. Leadley, 81 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Olney Trust Bank v. Hoelscher
green
2 sentences1996A presumption of undue influence is raised when the pleadings allege: (1) a fiduciary relationship between the testator and a devisee who received a substantial benefit from the will, (2) a testator in a dependent situation in which the substantial beneficiaries are in dominant roles, (3) a testator who reposed trust and confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) a will prepared or procured and executed in circumstances wherein such beneficiaries were instrumental or participated. ( In re Estate of Jessman (1990), 197 Ill.App.3d 414, 419-20 , 143 Ill.Dec. 783, 786 , 554 N.E.2d 718, 721 .) Once 1996App. 3d 414, 419-20 , 554 N.E.2d 718, 721 .) Once these factors are proven, a prima facie case of undue influence has been proven and the burden shifts to those defending the will to rebut the presumption. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
In Re Estate of Mooney
green
2 sentences1990App. 3d at 997 , 453 N.E.2d at 1161 .) Once these factors are proven, the petitioner has established a prima facie case of undue influence and the burden shifts to those who would defend the will to rebut the presumption. 117 Ill. 1990App. 3d at 997 , 453 N.E.2d at 1161 .) Once these factors are proven, the petitioner has established a prima facie case of undue influence and the burden shifts to those who would defend the will to rebut the presumption. 117 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Beyers v. Billingsley
green
1 sentence1983App. 3d 427, 436-37 , 369 N.E.2d 1320, 1327 .) Once the presumption of undue influence is raised, the burden shifts to those who would defend the will to rebut the presumption of undue influence. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Higgins v. Dwen
neutral
1 sentence1902That intention is evidenced, first, by the presumption that a person who makes and publishes a will intends to dispose of his whole estate thereby, unless there is something in the will to rebut that presumption; (Higgins v. Dwen, 100 Ill. 554 ; Woman’s Union Missionary Society v. Mead, 131 id. 338;) and secondly, by the fact that he did dispose of all his other property by will and attempted to devise the exact quantity of land he owned in said tracts,—that is to say, he devised to his sons David J. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.