Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 Ill. 345 - Altemeier v. Harris

Altemeier v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
May 1999
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 1999 · most notably 25 Ill. 2d 151 - Orme v. Northern Trust Co. (1962), 288 Ill. App. 3d 534 - Mayfield v. Estate of Mayfield (1997)

5 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

80194919501960197019801990decided

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 Hale v. Hale · Cowie v. Strohmeyer · Wagner v. Wagner · Steib v. Whitehead · Barry v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

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

  1. “We have thus enumerated a number of principles applicable to the will and the litigation in this case, because none of them were adverted to or mentioned in the family-settlement cases. Nor is there any indication, in the family-settlement cases, that, were the conditions thus enumerated present, the result would have been the same. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the object and purpose of a trust created by a will cannot be varied or terminated unless the purpose of the trust is accomplished, nor can such a trust be terminated by unanimous consent where it contains spendthrift provisions or where contingent interests cannot be definitely ascertained. All three of these conditions exist in the instant case.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We are fully in accord with the decision of the Appellate Court that the appellants have not brought themselves into a position where they can take advantage of the family-settlement doctrine; * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “spendthrift provisions for the protection of the beneficiaries”
    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.