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 1880–1963 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 |
|---|---|---|
Klass v. Yavitchgreen1 sentence1963He cites the cases of Simpson v. Adkins, 311 Ill App 543, 37 NE2d 355 , Klass v. Yavitch, 302 Ill App 229, 23 NE2d 936 , Lemker v. Kalberlah, 105 Ill App 445, Schack v. McKey, 97 Ill App 460 and Larson v. West, 110 Ill App 150. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Adkins
green
1 sentence1963He cites the cases of Simpson v. Adkins, 311 Ill App 543, 37 NE2d 355 , Klass v. Yavitch, 302 Ill App 229, 23 NE2d 936 , Lemker v. Kalberlah, 105 Ill App 445, Schack v. McKey, 97 Ill App 460 and Larson v. West, 110 Ill App 150. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Geer v. Goudy
neutral
1 sentence1943(Zimmer v. Zimmer, 298 Ill. 586 ; Monaghan v. Green, 265 Ill. 233 ; Wickes v. Walden, 228 Ill. 56 ; Geer v. Goudy, 174 Ill. 514 .) This was undoubtedly the rule at common law and under the Evidence Act prior to the amendment of 1935 to section 5. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Wickes v. Walden
neutral
1 sentence1943(Zimmer v. Zimmer, 298 Ill. 586 ; Monaghan v. Green, 265 Ill. 233 ; Wickes v. Walden, 228 Ill. 56 ; Geer v. Goudy, 174 Ill. 514 .) This was undoubtedly the rule at common law and under the Evidence Act prior to the amendment of 1935 to section 5. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Monaghan v. Green
neutral
1 sentence1943(Zimmer v. Zimmer, 298 Ill. 586 ; Monaghan v. Green, 265 Ill. 233 ; Wickes v. Walden, 228 Ill. 56 ; Geer v. Goudy, 174 Ill. 514 .) This was undoubtedly the rule at common law and under the Evidence Act prior to the amendment of 1935 to section 5. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Zimmer v. Zimmer
neutral
1 sentence1943(Zimmer v. Zimmer, 298 Ill. 586 ; Monaghan v. Green, 265 Ill. 233 ; Wickes v. Walden, 228 Ill. 56 ; Geer v. Goudy, 174 Ill. 514 .) This was undoubtedly the rule at common law and under the Evidence Act prior to the amendment of 1935 to section 5. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
United States Brewing Co. v. Dolese & Shepard Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938This is undoubtedly the rule at law, (United States Brewing Co. v. Dolese & Shephard Co. 282 Ill. 588 ; Geohegan v. Union Elevated Railroad Co. 266 id. 482;) but in equity a different rule exists. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Schumann-Heink v. Folsom
green
1 sentence1936(Schumann-Heink v. Folsom, 328 Ill. 321 ; Wolf v. Schiff Trust & Savings Bank. 276 Ill. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Wolf v. Schiff Trust & Savings Bank
neutral
1 sentence1936(Schumann-Heink v. Folsom, 328 Ill. 321 ; Wolf v. Schiff Trust & Savings Bank. 276 Ill. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Fry v. Morrison
neutral
1 sentence1917As held in Fry v. Morrison, 159 Ill. 244 , the generic term “will” includes codicils, and legal provisions relating to wills must be understood as embracing codicils. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Nelson v. Cook
neutral
1 sentence1880Nelson v. Cook, 17 Ill. 443 ; Coventry v. Barton, 17 Johns, 141. | 1 | 1880–1880 |
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.