maxim rule (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

maxim rule in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2000 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Pierce v. Carletongreen
ill · 1851 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1901–1901
1 sentence

1901See also, as bearing more or less upon this question, Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358 ; Lightner v. Steinagel, 33 Ill. 513 ; Millison v. Fisk, 43 Ill. 112 ; Bartell v. Bauman, 12 Ill.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Davis green
illappct · 1998
2 sentences

2000Davis, 296 Ill.

2000Davis , 296 Ill.

22000–2000
Dick v. Roberts green
ill · 1956
2 sentences

1980However, this maxim is not a rule of law (Dick v. Roberts (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 215 , 133 N.E.2d 305 ), and great care is required in its application (2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction §47.25 (4th ed. 1973), and cases cited therein).

1980However, this maxim is not a rule of law (Dick v. Roberts (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 215 , 133 N.E.2d 305 ), and great care is required in its application (2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction §47.25 (4th ed. 1973), and cases cited therein).

11980–1980
Dagley v. Black neutral
ill · 1902
1 sentence

1919In such case slight evidence will suffice.—Broom’s' Legal Maxims, 576.” The appellants insist upon the rule that parol proof of the contents of lost deeds must be so clear and positive as to leave no reasonable doubt of the substance of the material parts of the paper, and cite among other cases, Dagley v. Black, 197 Ill. 53 , where it is said: “When parol proof of the existence and contents of a lost deed is offered as the only evidence thereof, the witness must have seen and read it and be able to speak pointedly and clearly as to its tenor and contents, and to state whether it conveys a fee

11919–1919
Millison v. Fisk neutral
ill · 1867
1 sentence

1901See also, as bearing more or less upon this question, Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358 ; Lightner v. Steinagel, 33 Ill. 513 ; Millison v. Fisk, 43 Ill. 112 ; Bartell v. Bauman, 12 Ill.

11901–1901
Bartell v. Bauman neutral
· 1883
1 sentence

1901See also, as bearing more or less upon this question, Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358 ; Lightner v. Steinagel, 33 Ill. 513 ; Millison v. Fisk, 43 Ill. 112 ; Bartell v. Bauman, 12 Ill.

11901–1901

Where else courts name it

CT 25 (2004–2025) WA 5 (1948–2020) IL 5 (1901–2000) MS 4 (1920–1999) MA 4 (1954–2013) TX 4 (1904–2016) CA 4 (1918–2001) IA 4 (1975–2006) MT 3 (1901–1923) KY 3 (1935–1956) NJ 3 (1940–2021) AR 3 (1971–1983) PA 2 (1946–2017) MI 2 (2005–2006) MN 2 (1933–1954) NY 2 (1950–1972)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check