39 Ill. App. 3d 1053 - Jacobson v. Devon Bank’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably 86 Ill. App. 3d 533 - Bank of Naperville v. Holz (1980), 244 Ill. App. 3d 772 - Chemical Bank v. Paul (1993)
8 federal appellate · 24 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 31 Ill. 2d 620 - Vogel v. Melish · 51 Ill. App. 2d 289 - Claude Southern Corp. v. Henry's Drive-In, Inc. · 101 Ill. App. 2d 396 - National Acceptance Co. of America v. Exchange National Bank · 10 Ill. App. 3d 127 - First Bank & Trust Co. v. Post · Barrett v. Shanks
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.
““ ‘It is a rule that guaranty agreements are to be strictly construed in favor of the guarantor * * * and ‘the liability of a guarantor cannot be extended by construction.’ [Citations.] However, ‘[w]here a contract of guaranty is unequivocal in its terms it must be interpreted according to the language used, for it is presumed that the parties meant what their language clearly imports.’ [Citation.] In addition, ‘it is elementary that a guarantor is not liable for any thing which he did not agree to * * * [Citations.] The case before us hinges on the language of the guaranty. We are required to note and to consider the broad liability expressly assumed in the instrument of guaranty * * *. In the case before us, we are not dealing with an ambiguous document which requires construction by the court. We are dealing with a legal document executed by these parties presumably in an effort to implement their intention as ‘their language clearly imports.’ [Citation.] In this type of situation we are obliged to give effect to the clear and unambiguous language which the parties ratified and adopted. The importance of the language in a contract of guaranty may be illustrated and accentuated by comparing First Bank & Trust Co. v. Post (1973), 10 Ill. App. 3d 127 , 293 N.E.2d 907 , to In re Application of Bickel (1973), 14 Ill. App. 3d 813 , 303 N.E.2d 541 . In both cases the creditor failed to take proper action to realize the benefit from collateral given by the debtor. In the first of ”
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.