Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 ILL 213 - Lancaster v. Roberts

Lancaster v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
13
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Cities Service Oil Co. v. Viering (1949), Fowler Utilities Co. v. Gray (1907)

5 federal appellate · 43 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1701893190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon · Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Congregation · Dennis v. McCagg · Harding v. Parshall · Hale v. Cravener

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

  1. ““ It is claimed on behalf of the appellees that the demurrer to the bill was properly sustained upon the alleged ground that the only remedy which the purchaser named in the contract can resort to, is a suit at law for the amount of the cash deposit made at the time of the execution of the agreement.” “ This contention is based upon that clause in the contract which provides that ‘ in case the title upon examination is found materially defective within ten days after said abstract is furnished, then unless the material defects be cured within sixty days after written notice thereof, the said earnest money shall be refunded and the contract is to become inoperative.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It would seem * * * upon reason and principle that where a third person merely annexed his name to a contract which in the body of it does not mention him, and which is in itself a complete contract between other parties who sign it and are mentioned in it, such third person does not thereby become a party to the efficient and operative parts of the contract. His signature in such case can only be regarded as an expression of his assent to the act of the parties in making the contract, and may perhaps operate as an estoppel against his assertion in the future of an adverse interest in the subject-matter of the agreement.””
    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.