116 Ill. App. 3d 546 - Midkiff Implement Co. v. Worrall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The overwhelming majority of courts uphold very broad descriptions. Probably what is at work when courts condemn such descriptions is an unstated (and even unconscious) desire to protect debtors against dragnet clauses subjecting all or virtually' all of their property to the claim of a single secured creditor. Such sweeping clauses reduce debtor opportunities to obtain credit from other sources. And they may bespeak creditor greed. Yet Courts that condemn such clauses are not on sound ground. The ability to monopolize collateral — and to have collateral monopolized — comports with freedom of contract.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Klein (In re Klein)

2. ““The test is whether the description ‘reasonably identifies what is described,’ which it will do if it describes the property so as to distinguish it from any other property with which it might be confused.” Midkiff, 116 Ill. App. 3d at 549 , 451 N.E.2d at 625 , quoting HI. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, par. 9 — 110, Illinois Code Comment, at 85 (Smith-Hurd 1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 242 Ill. App. 3d 636 - City of Chicago v. Michigan Beach Housing Cooperative