Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 Ill. 494 - Nitterauer v. Pulley

Nitterauer v. Pulley’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
5
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 16 Ill. 2d 46 - Ariola v. Nigro (1959), 22 Ill. 2d 232 - McLeod v. Lambdin (1961)

3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

90194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Pradelt v. Lewis · Clayton v. Feig · Cienki v. Rusnak · Purtle v. Bell · Nilson Bros. v. Kahn

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

  1. ““* * * Where the encroachment is slight and unintentional, and the cost of removal great, and benefit to the adjoining owner small, it has been held that the court will ordinarily decline to compel a removal and will leave the complaining party to his remedy at law. Pradelt v. Lewis, 297 Ill. 374 , 130 N.E. 785 , 14 A.L.R. 828 . We do not think that the encroachment here was unintentional in the sense that the word is used in the above-stated proposition of law. The owners of lot 13 added the three or four feet to their building without using any appreciable care to ascertain the boundary line. The fact that they had no idea where the line was located would place upon them the burden of taking some precaution to see that they did not encroach on lot 12. They made no attempt by inquiry, survey or other means, to find the line. They must be held to have constructed their garage addition at their peril of encroaching on lot 12, if it turned out that they did. We find that they did so encroach, without question.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] proper allocation of excess or deficiency cannot be made until the owners of all the lots are in court”
    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.