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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. McKowngreen1 sentence2022See People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 310 (2010) - 11 - (when a forfeited issue is “inextricably intertwined” with other issues properly before the court, the court may exercise its discretion to review that issue). ¶ 49 Turning to Evans, which was decided 180 years ago, this court considered the limits of a riparian owner’s use of the water in a nonnavigable stream. | 1 | 1 |
Dessen v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2012App. 3d 869, 877 , 551 N.E.2d 782, 787 (1990), “in a situation where *** obstruction by the servient estate is in issue, the court is not required to apply the reasonable-use rule.” (Emphasis added.) ¶ 37 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred by balancing the hardships in this case, which had the effect of allowing Gillespie to obstruct the flow of water from the Swigert property. ¶ 38 B. | 1 | 1 |
Templeton v. Hussgreen2 sentences1979See Templeton v. Huss (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E.2d 141 . 1979See Templeton v. Huss (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E.2d 141 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shulte v. Flowers
green
2 sentences2024In addressing those questions, the trier of fact may consider the following factors ***: (1) the extent of the harm, (2) the character of the harm, (3) the social value that the law attaches to the use or enjoyment invaded, (4) the suitability of that use or enjoyment to the character of the locality, (5) the burden on the servient estate of avoiding the harm, and (6) the usefulness of the development of the dominant estate.” Id. ¶ 44 In the present matter, the trial court applied the proper law and balanced the harms and benefits for a reasonable use analysis. 2024Shulte, 2013 IL App (4th) 120132, ¶ 29 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bollweg v. Richard Marker Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Bollweg, 353 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Evans v. Merriweather
green
1 sentence1987We note that the definition of reasonable use, as contained in section 4(f) of the Act, incorporates the language used in Evans v. Merriweather (1842), 4 Ill. 492 , wherein the doctrine of reasonable use as it applies to surface water was set forth. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Higday v. Nickolaus
green
1 sentence1981The administration of such a system of rights has proved extremely difficult in times of water shortage and has tendered towards an ‘equalitarian rigidity’ which does not take into account the relative value of the competing uses.” Higday v. Nickolaus (Mo. App. 1971), 469 S.W.2d 859, 867 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.