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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Worthington Corp. v. El Chicote Ranch Properties, Ltd.green1 sentence2017A California court restated the principle: "Ordinarily, where the amount of a demand is sufficiently certain to justify the allowance of interest thereon, the existence of a set-off, counterclaim, or cross claim which is unliquidated will not prevent the recovery of interest on the balance of the demand found due from the time it became due." Worthington Corp. v. El Chicote Ranch Properties, 63 Cal. Rptr. 203, 209 (1967), quoting 47 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
Recreational Development Co. of America v. American Construction Co.green1 sentence2017App. 3d 179, 182 (1988). ¶ 14 However the weight of authority supports the principle that "[e]ntry of an arbitration award on a contract represents a liquidated sum which is within the statute; therefore, it accrues interest. [Citations.] However, where a liquidated claim is offset by an unliquidated claim arising out of the same general transaction, interest is allowed only on the balance due." Recreational Development Co. v. American Construction Co., 749 P.2d 1002, 1004 (Colo. App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capes v. Burgess
neutral
2 sentences1953Where the amount due may be ascertained by computation or reference to the contract out of which the claim arises it is a liquidated claim for purposes of garnishment. 28 Corp. Jur., p. 136, Capes v. Burgess, 135 Ill. 61 . 1941Where the amount due may be ascertained by computation or reference to the contract out of which the claim arises it is a liquidated claim for purposes of garnishment. 28 Corpus Juris, p. 136; Capes v. Burgess, supra [ 135 Ill. 61 ]. . . | 3 | 1939–1953 |
Robertson v. Travelers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1988App. 3d 845 , 427 N.E.2d 302 , rev’d on other grounds (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 411 , 448 N.E.2d 866 .) The plaintiff maintains that those cases are distinguishable since none of them dealt with the issue of unreasonable and vexatious delay in paying a liquidated claim reduced to judgment. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Robertson v. Travelers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1988App. 3d 845 , 427 N.E.2d 302 , rev’d on other grounds (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 411 , 448 N.E.2d 866 .) The plaintiff maintains that those cases are distinguishable since none of them dealt with the issue of unreasonable and vexatious delay in paying a liquidated claim reduced to judgment. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hennecke v. Harold Warp & Flex-O-Glass, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1953Hennecke v. Warp, 347 Ill. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Fuller v. . Kemp
green
1 sentence1901The minds of the parties then met so as to constitute an accord, and, as was said by this court in Fuller v. Kemp ( 138 N. Y. 231 ), ‘the acceptance of the money involved the acceptance of the condition, and the law will not permit any other inference from the transaction.’ ” In Tanner v. Merrill, supra, the court say: “ The important fact to ascertain is whether the plaintiff’s claim was a liquidated claim or not. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Tanner v. Merrill
green
1 sentence1901The minds of the parties then met so as to constitute an accord, and, as was said by this court in Fuller v. Kemp ( 138 N. Y. 231 ), ‘the acceptance of the money involved the acceptance of the condition, and the law will not permit any other inference from the transaction.’ ” In Tanner v. Merrill, supra, the court say: “ The important fact to ascertain is whether the plaintiff’s claim was a liquidated claim or not. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.