389 Ill. App. 3d 21 - Cwik v. Topinka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““Unlike the stock in Canel, which continued to produce dividends even though ‘neglected’ by the owner, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs’ property in this case was producing any interest until the Treasurer took possession of it under the Act. While the State may have gained the interest income, the plaintiffs failed to plead that they were receiving interest or expected to receive interest on the funds remitted to the State under the Act. Simply put, the State’s gain did not establish a loss on the part of the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs have no claim for a taking for which compensation is due.” 389 Ill. App. 3d at 31-32 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Ill. 2d 409 - CWIK v. Giannoulias

2. ““Whether the retention for state purposes of the interest earned on property held pursuant to the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act during the time it was in the possession of the State Treasurer’s Office and/or the State’s Retirement Systems is a taking for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Article II, [sic] §15, of the Illinois Constitution[.] If so, whether just compensation should be measured by the interest earned by the State on the property taken[.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Ill. 2d 409 - CWIK v. Giannoulias