Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 ILL 289 - Kirby v. Runals

Kirby v. Runals’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
4
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 109 Wis. 2d 164 - Shuput v. Lauer (1982), MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc. (1969)

4 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

801892190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Paulina Whiting v. The Bank of the United States · First Nat. Bank of Cleveland v. Shedd · Chicago & Great Western Railroad Land Co. v. Peck · Gochenour v. Mowry · Fergus v. Woodworth

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

  1. ““The decree was, under our understanding of the law, a final decree. It was one from which either the complainant in the bill or the owners of the equity of redemption could have prosecuted an appeal, and one under which, after the expiration of the time limited therein, the master in chancery could have made a sale of the premises. The matters in litigation in the suit, as between Runals, the complainant therein, and the owners of the equity of redemption, were the existence and maturity of the dfebt, the amount due, the existence of the mortgage securing the debt, the right to foreclose the same, and the right of the complainant to have a decree for the sale of the mortgaged premises to pay the debt, interest and costs. These litigations were all determined by the court and settled by the decree. The master was ordered to make sale of the real estate, and bring the moneys arising from such sale into court. The only thing which remained to be done in which'the mortgagors, or those succeeding to their rights, had any interest or concern, was the mere enforcement or carrying into execution of the decree.” "”
    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.