Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Ill. App. 2d 273 - Dalton v. Alexander

10 Ill. App. 2d 273 - Dalton v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
December 1996
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1996 · most notably 33 Ohio St. 3d 75 - Griffey v. Rajan (1987), Colley v. Bazell (1980)

25 state decisions

8019561960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Ellman v. De Ruiter · Jones v. Pebler · 8 Ill. App. 2d 268 - Busser v. Noble · People Ex Rel. Elliott v. Benefiel · Nitsche v. City of Chicago

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Lichter v. Scher, 4 Ill. App.2d 37 , where one of the defendants sought to have a judgment set aside on the ground that no service of summons had been made upon it, the Appellate Court applying the principle announced in the Ellman case, held that a motion supported by affidavits under Section 72 of the Practice Act averring as it did that the defendants had not been served was addressed to the equitable powers of the court which would enable it to grant relief against a void judgment. “Under varying factual situations, we find similar holdings in Schnable v. Tuma, 351 Ill. App. 486 ; Admiral Corp. v. Newell, 348 Ill. App. 180 ; Lane v. Bohlig, supra [ 349 Ill. App. 487 ]. “In the instant case, the defendants seek the same relief which the court in the Lichter case held might be granted on a motion made under Section 72 of the Practice Act. The only distinction between the two cases appears to be the fact that defendants filed their motion and sought to have the judgments vacated within 30 days after their entry.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.