Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 ILL 262 - Ullsperger v. Meyer

Ullsperger v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
17
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 91 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Trotter v. Lewis (1946), Shull v. Sexton (1964)

2 federal appellate · 91 state decisions — followed in 17 states

1701905191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 M'Crea v. Purmort · Gibson v. Brown · Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt · Clason v. Bailey · Estes v. Furlong

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

  1. ““It is insisted that there is no time specified for the completion of the contract, and that therefore the contract is not complete. Under such a contract the law would imply that it was to be performed within a reasonable time after entering into the same and what would be a reasonable time would be a matter of proof under all the conditions and circumstances that might surround the case ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It may, perhaps, he sustained upon the following grounds: The statute of frauds does not reach the substance of contracts and render them invalid or valid; it simply furnishes a rule of evidence. Whenever, therefore, any agreement is enforced against a defendant who has signed it by a plaintiff who has not, it cannot be said that the agreement, so far as it purports to bind the plaintiff, is a nullity. In a Buit against him the statute does no more than require a certain kind of proof, in case he avails himself of it as a defense. The defense, however, is wholly a personal one; and, if he neglects to set it up, the agreement would be established against him notwithstanding the statute. For these reasons, it cannot be said that a memorandum signed by one party alone is so completely wanting in mutuality that no action upon it can be sustained.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““No action shall be brought to charge any person upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments or any interest in or concerning them, for a longer term than one year, unless such contract or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing, signed by such party. * * * ””
    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.