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 1909–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Globe Accident Insurance v. Gerischgreen2 sentences2025Section 84 of the second Restatement of Agency, in setting forth what acts can be ratified, provides: “(2) An act which, when done, the purported or intended principal could not have - 13 - No. 1-23-2053 authorized, he cannot ratify, except an act affirmed by a legal representative whose appointment relates back to or before the time of such act.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 84, at 213 (1958); see Globe Accident Insurance Co. v. Gerisch, 163 Ill. 625, 631 (1896) (Under the doctrine of relation, “the grant of letters of administration related back to the date of the intestate’s death, and 1962Co., v. Gerisch, 163 Ill 625, 45 NE 563 , the Supreme Court held that: “Under [the doctrine of relation] the grant of letters of administration related back to the date of the intestate’s death, and validated all acts which came within the scope of an administrator’s authority, and which were, in their nature, beneficial to the estate.” 163 Ill at 631. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pagels v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1910(Pagels v. Meyer, 193 Ill. 172 .) This court in that case said (p. 179): ‘Where they are brought together in direct co-operation in the performance of a particular work * * * they have such opportunity and power and are brought within the relation required by the rule. 1909(Pagels v. Meyer, 193 Ill. 172 .) This court in that case said (p. 179) : “Where they are brought together in direct co-operation in the performance of a particular work * * * they have such opportunity and power and are brought within the relation required by the rule. | 2 | 1909–1910 |
Mack v. Woodruff
neutral
1 sentence1952It is never allowed to defeat the collateral rights of third persons, lawfully acquired. ’ ” The cases of Mack v. Woodruff, 87 Ill. 570 , and Springfield National Bank v. American Surety Co. of New York, 7 F. (2d) 44, also support plaintiff’s position. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College
green
1 sentence1931(Tiffany on Real Prop. (2 volume-in-one ed.) sec. 443; Benedict v. City of New York , 250 U.S. 321 ; Wooley v. Stewart , 222 N.Y. 347 , 118 N.E. 847 ; Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College , 229 Mass. 374 , 118 N.E. 933 .) In Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert , 4 How. 289 , the court said: "The trustee may disavow and disclaim his trust; the tenant, the title of his landlord after the expiration of his lease; the vendee, the title of his vendor after breach of the contract; and the tenant in common, the title of his co-tenant, and drive the respective owners and claimants to their action within the per | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert
green
1 sentence1931(Tiffany on Real Prop. (2 volume-in-one ed.) sec. 443; Benedict v. City of New York , 250 U.S. 321 ; Wooley v. Stewart , 222 N.Y. 347 , 118 N.E. 847 ; Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College , 229 Mass. 374 , 118 N.E. 933 .) In Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert , 4 How. 289 , the court said: "The trustee may disavow and disclaim his trust; the tenant, the title of his landlord after the expiration of his lease; the vendee, the title of his vendor after breach of the contract; and the tenant in common, the title of his co-tenant, and drive the respective owners and claimants to their action within the per | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Benedict v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1931(Tiffany on Real Prop. (2 volume-in-one ed.) sec. 443; Benedict v. City of New York , 250 U.S. 321 ; Wooley v. Stewart , 222 N.Y. 347 , 118 N.E. 847 ; Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College , 229 Mass. 374 , 118 N.E. 933 .) In Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert , 4 How. 289 , the court said: "The trustee may disavow and disclaim his trust; the tenant, the title of his landlord after the expiration of his lease; the vendee, the title of his vendor after breach of the contract; and the tenant in common, the title of his co-tenant, and drive the respective owners and claimants to their action within the per | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Woolley v. . Stewart
green
2 sentences1931(Tiffany on Real Prop. (2 volume-in-one ed.) sec. 443; Benedict v. City of New York , 250 U.S. 321 ; Wooley v. Stewart , 222 N.Y. 347 , 118 N.E. 847 ; Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College , 229 Mass. 374 , 118 N.E. 933 .) In Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert , 4 How. 289 , the court said: "The trustee may disavow and disclaim his trust; the tenant, the title of his landlord after the expiration of his lease; the vendee, the title of his vendor after breach of the contract; and the tenant in common, the title of his co-tenant, and drive the respective owners and claimants to their action within the per 1931(Tiffany on Real Prop. (2 volume-in-one ed.) sec. 443; Benedict v. City of New York , 250 U.S. 321 ; Wooley v. Stewart , 222 N.Y. 347 , 118 N.E. 847 ; Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College , 229 Mass. 374 , 118 N.E. 933 .) In Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert , 4 How. 289 , the court said: "The trustee may disavow and disclaim his trust; the tenant, the title of his landlord after the expiration of his lease; the vendee, the title of his vendor after breach of the contract; and the tenant in common, the title of his co-tenant, and drive the respective owners and claimants to their action within the per | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Brown v. Trustees of Schools
green
1 sentence1912Minor municipalities, in the exercise of purely public rights, stand in the same relation to the doctrine of estoppel as the State, (Brown v. Trustees of Schools, 224 Ill. 184 ,) and as they have been held to be estopped by their conduct respecting public highways and streets, it is contended that delay and long acquiescence of the general public and public officers may estop the State as to public rights. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Chicago City Railway Co. v. Leach
neutral
1 sentence1909Where their usual duties bring them into habitual association, the association must be sufficiently personal to furnish the same opportunity and power to exercise an influence upon each other promotive of proper caution.” It is most earnestly urged by appellant that under the reasoning of this court in Chicago City Railway Co. v. Leach, supra, the motormen and conductors on the Sixty-third street line, as a matter of law, were fellow-servants with the gripmen and conductors of the Cottage Grove avenue line under the second branch of this rule, and that therefore the motorman here in question a | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.