46 Ill. App. 3d 74 - Jacobs v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably 77 Ill. App. 3d 495 - Denton Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1979), 101 Ill. App. 3d 283 - FIRST NAT'L BK. OF BARRINGTON v. Oldenburg (1981)
3 district · 23 state decisions
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 60 Ill. 2d 141 - Kravis v. Smith Marine, Inc. · 37 Ill. 2d 352 - Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. · 125 Ill. App. 2d 8 - Madigan v. Buehr · Welsh v. Jakstas · 6 Ill. 2d 577 - Allendorf v. Daily
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * it cannot be said that a beneficiary can never contract to sell the trust property. He may do so under appropriate circumstances, not because he has power to convey title or to execute a deed, or because he is the agent of the trustee or stands in its stead, but because the trust agreement gives him ‘control of the selling’ and the right to direct the trustee to convey title to whomever he designates. Since he has the power to designate conveyance he may contract to exercise that power. If the sales contract is one in which this power is explicitly exercised, or if it is one which, because of the disclosure of the trust and the beneficiary’s status, can be construed as exercising this power, the contract is enforceable against both the beneficiary and the purchaser. To permit the beneficiary to contract in this manner does not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the trustee nor its functions; it does not infringe upon the protection afforded a purchaser who deals with the trustee, nor does it expand the beneficiary’s liability or change his status. His legal interest in the trust remains personal property; but allowing him to climax negotiations for the sale of the real estate by agreeing to have it conveyed removes some of the make-believe which hovers over land trusts and permits a realistic approach to the disposition of trust property.” (Madigan v. Buehr (1970), 125 Ill. App. 2d 8, 16-17 , 260 N.E.2d 431, 435 .)”
3 later decisions 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.