Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 850 NE2D 387 - In Re Foreman

In Re Foreman’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5891

Relies on 308 Ill. App. 3d 546 - Henderson v. Roadway Express · 317 Ill. App. 3d 119 - In Re Nitz · 312 Ill. App. 3d 577 - Green v. Safeco Life Insurance · Hoffman v. Hoffman · 319 Ill. App. 3d 1048 - Shaffer v. Liberty Life Assurance Co.

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

  1. “Rapid Settlements argues that the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 (Pub.L. No. 107-134, 115 Stat. 2427 (to be codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5891 (b)(2)(A) (2006) ) ) invalidates the antiassignment provision because it eliminates an obligor's concerns about potential tax liability when an obligee attempts to assign a structured settlement agreement. The Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act only specifies what tax treatment certain kinds of structured settlements will be afforded; it leaves to the individual states the question of assignability. The clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement controls our analysis here.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Annuitant] acknowledges that the Periodic Payments described in Section 2 cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by [her]; nor shall [she] have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate the Periodic Payments, or any part thereof, by assignment or otherwise.” Foreman, 302 Ill.Dec. 950 , 850 N.E.2d at 388 . . The Purchase Contract expressly provides:”
    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.