7 Ill. 2d 231 - Pope v. Speiser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

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

1. “«* # # if j-}le owner stands by and permits another to expend money in improving his land he may be compelled * * * to pay for the improvements. In such cases there is always some ingredient which would make it a fraud in the owner to insist upon his legal rights. Such an ingredient may consist in the owner encouraging the stranger to proceed with the improvement, or where one party acts ignorantly and without the means of better information and the other remains silent when it is in his power to prevent the expenditure of the money under a delusion.” 7 Ill. 2d 231, 240 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 100 Ill. App. 3d 437 - Robinson v. Robinson · 14 Ill. App. 3d 306 - Jacobsen v. Conlon

2. ““Where a person makes improvements upon property of another or otherwise increases its value, being induced by fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake of such a character that he is entitled to restitution, he is entitled to an equitable lien upon the property. Comment: a. The rule stated in this Section is applicable where a person renders services in improving or otherwise increasing the value of the property of another, or pays for such services, or supplies materials. If in such a case the improvement cannot be severed from the land or chattels upon which the improvement has been made, and specific restitution is therefore impossible, the owner of the land or chattels cannot be compelled to surrender them, and no constructive trust arises. The person making the improvements, however, may be entitled to restitution of the value of the benefit conferred or the value of what he has expended. The circumstances under which he is entitled to such restitution are stated in §§40 and 42. Where he is entitled to such restitution, he is entitled to enforce and equitable lien upon the property improved to secure his right to restitution. b. Measure of recovery. Where the person who makes improvements upon the property of another is induced to do so by the fraud, duress or undue influence of the other, he is entitled to recover the value of his services or expenditures, and is not limited to the amount of the increase in value of the property (see §§ 151, 152); and lie has an equit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 Ill. App. 3d 48 - Worley v. Ehret

3. ““There is an implication of a promise to pay for valuable services rendered with the knowledge and approval of the recipient in the absence of a showing to the contrary. A promise to pay the reasonable value of the service is implied where one performs for another, with the other’s knowledge, a useful service of a character that is usually charged for, and the latter expresses no dissent or avails himself of the service. A promise to pay for services can, however, only be implied when they are rendered in such circumstances as authorized the party performing to entertain a reasonable expectation of their payment by the party benefitted.” Pope v. Speiser (1955), 7 Ill. 2d 231, 237-38 , citing 12 Am. Jur. Contracts sec. 5, at 501 (1938).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 139 Ill. App. 3d 542 - Bd of Directors of Carriage Way Property Owners Ass'n v. Western National Bank of Cicero