Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 Ill. App. 3d 914 - Lane v. Budiselich

17 Ill. App. 3d 914 - Lane v. Budiselich’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2011

9 state decisions

4019741980199020002010decided

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 Metheny v. Bohn · Stunz v. Stunz · Hayden v. McNamee · 46 Ill. App. 2d 49 - Jackson v. O'CONNELL · Harrison v. Kamp

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 all proceedings for the partition of real estate, when the rights and interests of all the parties in interest are properly set forth in the complaint, the court shall apportion the costs among the parties in interest in the action, including the necessary expense of procuring such evidence of title to the real estate as is usual and customary for making sales of real estate, and a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s attorney, so that each party shall pay his or her equitable portion thereof, unless the defendants, or some of them, interpose a good and substantial defense to the complaint. In such case the party or parties making such substantial defense shall recover their costs against the plaintiff according to justice and equity.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 17-125.)”
    2 later decisions 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.