Doney v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably 153 Ill. 2d 164 - Scadron v. City of Des Plaines (1992), 206 Ill. 2d 541 - People Ex Rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff (2003)
50 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 105 Ill. 2d 310 - People v. Steppan · 111 Ill. 2d 350 - Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp. · 132 Ill. 2d 304 - Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Commission · 19 Ill. 2d 342 - Western National Bank v. Village of Kildeer · 124 Ill. 2d 533 - In Re Petition of Village of Kildeer
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cause shall be heard without further pleadings. At the hearing the objector may be heard in person or by counsel. Prior to hearing evidence on the validity of the annexation petition or ordinance, the court shall hear and determine any objection under sub-paragraph (4) of Section 7-1-3. If the court is satisfied that such objection is valid, it shall order the petition or ordinance to be amended to eliminate such objector’s land from the territory sought to be annexed. Thereafter upon this hearing the only matter for determination shall be the validity of the annexation petition or ordinance, as the case may be, and the decision of the court shall be final. All petitions shall be supported by an affidavit of one or more of the petitioners, or some one on their behalf, that the signatures on the petition represent a majority of the property owners of record of land in the territory described and a majority of the electors of the territory therein described. Petitions so verified shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of such facts. If the court finds that (1) the annexation petition is not signed by the requisite number of electors or property owners of record; or (2) that the described property is not contiguous to the annexing municipality; or (3) that the description is materially defective; or (4) that the petition or ordinance, as the case may be, is otherwise invalid, the court shall dismiss the petition or ordinance, as the case may be. But if the court finds tha”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“After the filing of the petition but not less than 5 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, any interested person may file with the circuit clerk his objections (1) that the territory described in the petition or ordinance, as the case may be, is not contiguous to the annexing municipality, (2) that the petition is not signed by the requisite number of electors or property owners of record, (3) that the description of the territory contained in the petition or ordinance, as the case may be, is inadequate, or (4) that the objector’s land is located on the perimeter of such territory, that he does not desire annexation, and that exclusion of his land will not destroy the contiguity of such described property with the annexing municipality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Any territory which is not within the corporate limits of any municipality but which is contiguous to a municipality at the time of annexation and which territory has *** electors residing therein, may be annexed to the municipality in the following manner: a written petition signed by the owners of record of all land within such territory and by at least 51% of the electors residing therein shall be filed with the municipal clerk. The petition shall request annexation and shall state that *** at least 51% of such electors residing therein join the petition *** and shall he under oath.” (Emphasis added.) (111. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 24, par. 7 — 1—8.)”
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.