130 Ill. App. 3d 701 - Heller v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2024
3 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
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 26 Wis. 2d 269 - Ada Enterprises, Inc. v. Thompson
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.
“The plaintiffs contend that they took the property as security for eventual cash payment of the judgment. We agree. But, as matters now stand, the plaintiffs can sit on the property indefinitely and institute supplemental proceedings to recover the rest of the judgment. Thus the plaintiffs have the use and enjoyment of a valuable piece of property while the defendants, who put the property up as bond expecting it to satisfy the judgment, are not only deprived of the property, but may also be compelled to dig even deeper in order to pay the judgment. Such a result is inequitable. The plaintiffs have received a windfall at the defendants’ expense. If, as the plaintiffs contend, the transfer of the real estate was intended to secure the judgment, then by taking the deed, the plaintiffs acquired only a lien. Rather than proceed against the defendants to recover the judgment, the equitable solution is for the plaintiffs to foreclose on their lien by selling the property. We are guided in this result by the maxim that equity regards as done that which ought to be done. The parties intended the property to secure the judgment. Therefore, the property should be used to satisfy the judgment. ... The cause is remanded and the trial court is directed to sell the property, apply the proceeds to the judgment, and remit the excess, if any, to the defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendants have alleged only that they expected the property transfer to satisfy the judgment. They have failed to allege facts which show that the plaintiffs shared that expectation. The appraised value of the property [alleged to be sufficient to satisfy the judgment] is speculative and irrelevant unless the defendants show that the plaintiffs agreed to accept the property at its appraised ' value instead of cash. The fact that the plaintiffs never indicated that the property transfer would not satisfy the judgment proves nothing. Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs elected to petition for release of property instead of compelling a sheriffs sale is not evidence of an agreement to accept the property in satisfaction of the judgment. The plaintiffs were entitled to petition for release of the appeal bond in order to obtain partial cash payment via the certificate of deposit. The plaintiffs did not give up the right to recover the rest of the judgment in cash.”
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.