Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 ILL 20 - Cook v. Norton

Cook v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

1868

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 1926
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1926

7 state decisions

601868187018801890190019101920decided

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 Jackson v. Warren · Jackson ex dem. Scofield v. Collins · Jackson ex. dem. Masten v. Bush · Steiner v. Priddy

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

  1. “that the purchaser in possession could protect himself, by proper proof, under the Statute of Limitations, if more than seven years • had elapsed from the time, when the prior, purchaser had received or might have- received his deed ? ■. . . The defendant has never acknowledged a lessor, nor any- title paramount to his own. It is true the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run in his favor until the expiration of fifteen months from the -sheriff’s sale; because until then there was no outstanding title upon which suit could be brought. But upon that day the. purchaser at the sale was at liberty to take out his deed, clothe himself with the legal title, and demand possession; and from that day the statute began to run.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “although the sheriff’s deed made on that day would have divested the legal title from Clark and vested it in the purchaser, that fact would not have converted Clark into a tenant. From that moment he became a trespasser, and might have been sued as such.”
    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.