Curia v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

587 F.3d 824 · 2009

Citation profile

cited by 26 later decisions

states following

June 2025

most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 226 Ill. 2d 208 - Gallagher v. Lenart · 144 Ill. 2d 440 - Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock · 213 Ill. 2d 141 - Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance · Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago · 348 Ill. App. 3d 461 - Schwinder v. Austin Bank of Chicago

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.

“In construing contracts, to determine their intent, it is long established that a construction should be adopted, if possible ... which harmonizes all the various parts so that no provision is deemed conflicting with, or repugnant to, or neutralizing of any other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 697 F. Supp. 2d 1001 - BP Amoco Chemical Co. v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC · 295 F. Supp. 3d 884 - Lifeworks Tech. Grp. LLC v. Walgreen Co.
“The question of contract ambiguity turns largely on whether the contract language is “reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning,” Susmano v. Associated Internists of Chi., Ltd., 97 Ill.App.3d 215 , 52 Ill.Dec. 670 , 422 N.E.2d 879, 882 (1981), although ambiguity may also exist where the language used is “obscure in meaning through indefiniteness of expression,” Platt v. Gateway Int’l Motorsports Corp., 351 Ill.App.3d 326 , 286 Ill.Dec. 222 , 813 N.E.2d 279, 283 (2004).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 697 F. Supp. 2d 1001 - BP Amoco Chemical Co. v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC
“[A] contract is not unambiguous just because both parties say so, nor is a contract ambiguous simply because the parties offer different interpretations of its language.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Paloian v. GRUPO SERLA SA DE CV

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.