407 Ill. App. 3d 474 - Pielet v. Pielet’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 158 Ill. 2d 391 - Bonaguro v. the County Officers Electoral Board · 179 Ill. 2d 338 - Vernon v. Schuster · 202 Ill. 2d 414 - Land v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago · 72 Ill. App. 3d 477 - Poliquin v. Sapp · 89 Ill. App. 3d 569 - Blankenship v. Demmler Manufacturing 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A corporation's debts (and rights) extend into the survival period [citation]; * * * the policy favoring satisfaction of a dissolved corporation's outstanding debts is the very reason for the Survival Statute. Thus, since the corporation's debts and obligations persist into the survival period, and since the corporation continues to exist during the survival period, a corporation or its creditors may assert claims regarding those debts and obligations during the survival period. However, once the survival period has ended, the corporation ceases to exist. Since the corporation at that point no longer exists, it can no longer be subject to any claim, and any claims not raised against or by the corporation become forfeited." Pielet, 407 Ill.App.3d at 496 , 347 Ill.Dec. 403 , 942 N.E.2d 606 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" 'The exception is designed to prevent a situation whereby the specific purpose of acquiring assets is to place those assets out of the reach of the predecessor's creditors. * * * To allow the predecessor to escape liability by merely changing hats would amount to fraud. Thus, the underlying theory of the exception is that, if a corporation goes through a mere change in form without a significant change in substance, it should not be allowed to escape liability.' " Id. at 346 , 228 Ill.Dec. 195 , 688 N.E.2d 1172 (quoting Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Holtzman , 80 Md.App. 282 , 562 A.2d 1286 , 1293 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'(1) where there is an express or implied agreement of assumption [of liability]; (2) where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the purchaser or seller corporation; (3) where the purchaser is merely a continuation of the seller; or (4) where the transaction is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller's obligations.' " Id. (quoting Pielet v. Pielet , 407 Ill. App. 3d 474 , 508, 347 Ill.Dec. 403 , 942 N.E.2d 606 (2010) ). Here, defendants essentially argue that successor liability cannot apply to labor unions on the basis of a de facto merger or under a "mere continuation”
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.