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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1945–1979 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 |
|---|---|---|
GENERAL CASUALTY CO. OF WIS. v. Elamgreen2 sentences1979See generally General Casualty Co. v. Elam (1972), 8 Ill. 1979Since we have determined, as a matter of law, that the term “sale” in this agreement is initially susceptible to both of these meanings, the latent ambiguity doctrine is applicable (see General Casualty Co. v. Elam (1972), 8 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Meyer Milling Co.
green
2 sentences1972However, the trial court permitted introduction of the evidence on the theory that plaintiff was not "proposing to make a change, he is proposing to show the interpretation at the time of the inception of the contract". • 4 Appellant, in his reply brief, cites Queens Insurance Co. of America v. Meyer Milling Co. (8th Cir.1930), 43 F.2d 885 , to illustrate the latent ambiguity doctrine. 1972Appellant, in his reply brief, cites Queens Insurance Co. of America v. Meyer Milling Co. (8th Cir. 1930), 43 F.2d 885 , to illustrate the latent ambiguity doctrine. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
Cory v. Minton
green
1 sentence1979App. 3d 215 , 220-21, 289 N.E.2d 699 ), and parol evidence is necessarily admissible to demonstrate and explain the ambiguity (see Cory v. Minton (1977), 49 Ill. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Kurtz v. Hibner
neutral
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Bishop v. Morgan
green
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Bingel v. Volz
green
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Williams v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Vestal v. Garrett
green
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Lomax v. Lomax
neutral
1 sentence1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Graves v. Rose
neutral
2 sentences1945Probably the most complete discussion of the application of the latent ambiguity rule in the construction of wills is to be found in Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 . 1945(Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 Ill. 514 ; Bishop v. Morgan, 82 Ill. 351 ; Bingel v. Volz, 142 Ill. 214 ; Williams v. Williams, 189 Ill. 500 ; Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Lomax v. Lomax, 218 Ill. 629 ; Graves v. Rose, 246 Ill. 76 .) When, however, there is a latent ambiguity in a description of the object or subject of the gift, and such ambiguity can be removed by rejecting false words, leaving a complete, independent description, it is the duty of the court to do so, and where there are two descriptions, one good and one bad, the authorities are uniform to the effect that the latter may be reject | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.