63 Ill. 2d 270 - Echols v. Olsen’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 427 - Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp. (1979), 164 W. Va. 488 - Talkington v. Barnhart (1980)
3 federal appellate · 35 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 Hacken v. Isenberg · Eliason v. Wilborn · The People v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co. · Klouda v. Pechousek · Miller v. Bullington
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To do so would be an egregious intrusion upon the legislative authority. The Torrens Act was designed by the legislature to protect intending purchasers (People v. Mortenson, 404 Ill. 107 [ 88 N.E.2d 35 ]; Balzer v. Pyles, 350 Ill. 344 [ 183 N.E. 215 ]; In re Bickel, 301 Ill. 484 [ 134 N.E. 76 ]; Hacken v. Isenberg, 288 Ill. 589 [ 124 N.E. 306 ]), and has never been considered to extend the preference to judgment creditors. Judgment creditors under section 30 are preferred to holders of prior but unrecorded interests only because of that statute. Section 30 existed prior to the Torrens Act and it is not unreasonable to say that had the legislature intended that judgment creditors receive under the Torrens Act the priority and preference they are given under section 30 it would have inserted a provision in the Torrens Act similar to section 30.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Except in case of fraud and except as herein otherwise provided, no person taking a transfer of registered land, or any estate or interest therein, or of any charge upon the same from the registered owner shall be held to inquire into the circumstances under which, or the consideration for which such owner or any previous registered owner was registered, or be affected with notice, actual or constructive, of any unregistered trust, lien, claim, demand or interest; and the knowledge that any unregistered trust, lien, claim, demand or interest is in existence shall not of itself be imputed as fraud."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“only to the actual interest of the judgment debtor in the property (citations), and that this interest will not be extended to allow him to claim property of another in satisfaction of his lien in the absence of a statute specifically giving him this right (citations).”
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.