28 Ill. 2d 184 - Wilkinson v. Appleton’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Halpert v. Rosenthal (1970), Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Sumitomo Corp. of America (1992)
8 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
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 Roda v. Berko · 20 Ill. 2d 255 - Moehling v. W. E. O'Neil Construction Co. · 15 Ill. 2d 255 - Peters v. Catt · Schueler v. Blomstrand · Handelman v. Arquilla
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[F]or a misrepresentation to constitute fraud which invalidates a contract, it must be a representation in the form of a statement of a material fact, made for the purpose of inducing a party to act; it must be false and known by the party making it to be false, or not actually believed by him, on reasonable grounds, to be true; and the party to whom it is made must be ignorant of its falsity, must reasonably believe it to be true, must act thereon to his damage, and in so acting must rely on the truth of the statement.” (Wilkinson v. Appleton (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 184, 187 , 190 N.E.2d 727, 729-30 .)”
6 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.