Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 ILL 26 - McAnnulty v. McAnnulty

McAnnulty v. McAnnulty’s Empirical Analysis

1887

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
15
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Sternberg v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (1946), 244 Ill. App. 3d 496 - In Re Marriage of Jelinek (1993)

34 state decisions — followed in 15 states

70188718901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Tyler v. Tyler · In re the Will of Tuller · Larrowe v. Beam · Crane v. Gough · Flenner v. Flenner

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

  1. “As this instrument was not executed until about a month after the marriage, it is clear that if any agreement existed before or at the time of the marriage, it was a mere verbal agreement, and, as such, it is obnoxious to the Statute of Frauds. The first section of chapter 59 of the Revised Statutes, among other things, declares, `that no action shall be brought whereby to charge * * * any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage.' This alleged ante-nuptial agreement clearly comes within the provision of this section, and the statute must be given effect unless something has occurred to take the case out of its operation. The signing of the written instrument after the marriage, can be regarded, at the very farthest, as nothing more than a mere acknowledgment, in writing, of the terms of the previous verbal agreement, and this certainly does not meet the requirements of the statute, for the simple reason the statute requires the contract itself to be in writing.”
    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.