29 Ill. 2d 61 - Heldt v. Heldt’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2000 · most notably 69 Ill. App. 3d 200 - Schuppe v. Schuppe (1979), 85 Ill. App. 3d 584 - In Re Marriage of Clearman (1980)
41 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 16 Ill. 2d 268 - Peck v. Peck · Brod v. Brod · Hill v. Reno · 5 Ill. 2d 468 - La Placa v. La Placa · Vierieg v. Krehmke
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, in the absence of special equities, one owning land in common with another, such as a tenant in common or a joint tenant, has an absolute right to partition. (Yedor v. Chicago City Bank and Trust Co., 376 Ill. 121 ; Murphy v. Murphy, 343 Ill. 234 ; Vierieg v. Krehmke, 293 Ill. 265 .) It is well settled that when a husband and wife are joint tenants, either may maintain a successful action in partition against the other regardless of the effect on the tenancy. (Lutticke v. Lutticke, 406 Ill. 181 ; Stromsen v. Stromsen, 397 Ill. 260 .) At the same time, however, we have stated on many occasions that a court of chancery will not permit a partition proceeding to be used to circumvent established principles of law or public policy and will, in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction, control the proceedings to protect the rights of all the parties. Brod v. Brod, 390 Ill. 312 ; Whitaker v. Scherrer, 313 Ill. 473 .” (Heldt v. Heldt (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 61, 63 .) "”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““For the most part basic and well established principles of law are involved, and the issue presented is largely whether we should extend them to the unprecedented extremes urged by defendant and thus deny to plaintiff the right to partition. # e # Next, and principally, defendant urges that we should declare it against public policy for either spouse, holding as a joint tenant, to partition premises being used as a home for both the husband and wife and their minor children. Stated otherwise, it is defendant’s position that the absolute right to partition should be excepted when it involves a family home with minor children.” ” ” We are not disposed to promulgate a sweeping rule of law which would in effect hold that the bonds of matrimony coupled with having children will deprive both parents of full rights and benefits in their property, and of the remedies provided by law with respect thereto.””
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.