Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 ILL 425 - Heuser v. Harris

Heuser v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1867

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
November 1991
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1991 · most notably Parks v. Northwestern University (1905), Harrington v. Pier (1900)

2 federal appellate · 61 state decisions — followed in 10 states

11018671870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Gilman v. Hamilton

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

  1. ““Another principle equally well established is, that if the bequest be for charity it matters not how uncertain the persons or the objects may he, or whether the persons who are to take are in esse or not, or whether the bequest can be carried into exact execution or not, or whether the legatee be a corporation capable in law of taking or not, for in all these and the like cases the court will sustain the legacy and give it effect according to its own principles; and where a literal execution becomes inexpedient or impracticable, the court will execute it as nearly as it can according to the general purposes, or as (as the technical expression is) cy pres.””
    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.