Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 Ill. 48 - Englestien v. Mintz

Englestien v. Mintz’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
15
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Westinghouse Electric Elevator Co. v. LaSalle Monroe Building Corp. (1946), Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp. (1940)

12 federal appellate · 72 state decisions — followed in 15 states

180193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers · Crawford v. Nimmons · Kochorimbus v. Maggos · Thanos v. Thanos · Rhodes v. Meredith

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

  1. “The words “subject to,” used in their ordinary sense, mean “subordinate to,” “subservient to,” or “limited by.” There is nothing in the use of the words “subject to,” in their ordinary use, which would even hint at the creation of affirmative rights.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In construing a contract the words used must be given their well-recognized, ordinary meaning, unless it appears from the context of the contract or from the explanation of some ambiguity therein that such was not in accordance with the intent of the parties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]efore a court may look at the surrounding circumstances there must be ambiguity in the language of the instrument.”
    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.