62 Ill. App. 3d 375 - White v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 99 Ill. 2d 284 - Johnstowne Centre Partnership v. Chin (1983), 97 Ill. App. 3d 215 - Susmano v. ASSOC. INTERNISTS OF CHICAGO (1981)
54 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 71
Relies on 15 Ill. 2d 272 - Martindell v. Lake Shore National Bank · 54 Ill. App. 3d 835 - Harris v. American General Finance Corp. · 28 Ill. App. 3d 1045 - Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co. · 6 Ill. App. 3d 546 - Sudler v. Sudler · 8 Ill. App. 3d 490 - Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Addison Green Meadows, Inc.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The normal rules pertaining to the construction of contracts are applicable to the interpretation of the provisions of a divorce decree. [Citation.] The settlement provisions within the divorce decree should be construed so as to give effect to the intention of the parties. [Citations.] The intent of the parties must be determined from the contract as a whole and not from any one clause standing alone. [Citations.] Further, in construing a contract, meaning and effect must be given to every part, and no part should be rejected as surplusage unless absolutely necessary since it is presumed that each provision was inserted deliberately and for a purpose. [Citations.] The parties’ intent must be determined solely from the language of the contract unless the language is ambiguous, in which case extrinsic evidence may be introduced to explain the language. [Citation.] A contract is ambiguous when the language used is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. [Citation.] Language is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree upon its meaning.” White v. White (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 375, 378-79 , 378 N.E.2d 1255 .”
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.