Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 Ill. App. 3d 128 - Beeding v. Miller

167 Ill. App. 3d 128 - Beeding v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2020

6 state decisions

4019881990200020102020decided

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 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · 111 Ill. 2d 350 - Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp. · 108 Ill. 2d 357 - Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompson · 107 Ill. 2d 120 - Chicago Investment Corp. v. Dolins · 68 Ill. 2d 88 - People Ex Rel. Tucker v. Kotsos

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

  1. ““In the instant action, plaintiff states that the subject of impairment is the provision prohibiting a landlord from simply choosing not to renew a lease at its expiration. The contract in question here is the lease. The lease, executed subsequent to the statute in question, provides on its face that renewal be automatic subject to either party giving adequate notice ... [R]egardless of whether section 8 impairs the contract, we have already concluded that the state’s purpose behind section 8 — protecting tenants from the arbitrary termination of their tenancies — is legitimate, and the conditions imposed by section 8 are reasonable. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, section 8 does not create a life tenancy for mobile home lot lessees. It merely requires landlords to establish cause for terminating the tenancy. [The landlord] continues to have the beneficial use of his property and may regain possession of it if he shows cause for termination. Therefore, we hold that section 8 of the Act is not an unconstitutional impairment of contract between mobile home park owners and lot lessees.””
    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.