Castle v. Hulcher’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Continental Can Co. · Storey v. Storey · Keuper v. Unknown Heirs of Mette · Kinder v. LaSalle County Carbon Coal Co. · Vermont Street M. E. Church v. Brose
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What was the purpose in mind when Castle was named a co-lessee, and what do the statements and actions of the parties indicate his interest was intended to be? Castle maintains that these questions cannot be explored since Hulcher has made a judicial admission of the existence of the lease and its contents. We do not agree. There is no magic in a judicial admission. It is simply a way of saying that one should not be permitted to refute something which it can be proved he has admitted. In this case Hulcher admitted the existence and the language of the lease. Beyond that he admitted nothing and it is obvious that substantial disagreement exists over the meaning of the lease.” ( 20 Ill. App. 3d 11 , 14, 312 N.E.2d 836, 838 .)”
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.