Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 Ill. 510 - Dolley v. Powers

Dolley v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2021

14 state decisions

30194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Smith v. Grubb · Deslauriers v. Senesac · Tindall v. Yeats · Mittel v. Karl · Partridge v. Berliner

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

  1. ““Since it cannot he presumed that the parties used words or terms in a deed without intending that some meaning or effect be given them, a construction will be adopted, if legally permissible, giving effect to the whole instrument and to each word and term used, rejecting none as meaningless, repugnant or surplusage.””
    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.