Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 ILL 607 - Markham v. Katzenstein

Markham v. Katzenstein’s Empirical Analysis

1904

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
November 1959
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Levy v. . Brush · Stevenson v. Crapnell · Lantry v. Lantry

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

  1. ““From such a transaction as this, can it be said that a trust arises in any form? We think not. . . . the party claiming the benefit of the trust must bear such a relation to the property out of which the trust is supposed to arise, that, taking into consideration the relations of the parties ... to the property itself and the agreement of the party ... , to permit the latter to deny the trust . . . would be more than a mere moral wrong, but would amount to a legal fraud.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . there must be something more than a mere verbal promise, however unequivocal; otherwise, the statute of frauds would be virtually abrogated. There must be an element of positive fraud accompanying the promise, and by means of which the acquisition of the legal title is wrongfully consummated.” (Our emphasis.)”
    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.