Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 269 ILL 164 - Turney v. Shriver

Turney v. Shriver’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
September 1993
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1993 · most notably Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1936), Industrial Bank of Washington, a Corporation v. Walter N. Tobriner, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and Theodore J. Scheve (1968)

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

70191519201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 New Haven Clock Co. v. Kochersperger · Frye v. Partridge · Adams v. Gordon

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

  1. ““Appellants knew, when they purchased the lot, of this restriction in the deed and the manner in which it might be used and the restrictions to which it was subject. These matters were all undoubtedly taken into consideration by the parties in fixing the price of the lot at the time it was sold, and if such restriction was a damage to the lot appellants received full advantage of the same at the time they purchased the lot. At any rate, they purchased the lot subject to those conditions and restrictions, and are now bound by them so long as the restrictions are reasonable and not contrary to the public policy or some positive rule of law. We find nothing in the restrictions in question of that character, and it is therefore but equitable to hold that they must abide by the terms of the contract they have made and by virtue of which the land was conveyed to them. Frye v. Partridge, 82 Ill. 267 ; VanSant v. Rose, 260 id. 401 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`Where a bill for an injunction has been filed, and the court has acquired jurisdiction of both the person and the subject-matter of the suit, and the defendant does any act which the bill seeks to enjoin, such party acts at his peril and subject to the power of the court to compel a restoration of the status, or to grant such other relief as may be proper under the particular circumstances of the case.'”
    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.