Legal Opinion

Hintz v. Lazarus

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 9, 1978No. 76-518PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rechenmacher

Clarence M. and Marilyn G. Hintz filed an action seeking to have a certain contract for the sale of their farm to the defendant, George Lazarus, “cancelled” on grounds of fraud and unconscionability. Lazarus counterclaimed in the alternative for specific performance or money damages. After a bench trial, the court entered an order finding that Lazarus was guilty of actionable misrepresentations, that the subject contract was unconscionable, and declaring the contract cancelled. The Hintzes were ordered to return Lazarus’ earnest money and to pay Lazarus an amount equal to the legal fees…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stigler v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Morey v. HoffmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Leon v. Max E. Miller & Son, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1974
  4. Gale v. York Center Community Cooperative, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Peterson v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1976

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Association Benefit Services, Inc. v. Caremark RX, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
  2. Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Shelly Feldman, Individually and D/B/A Shelly Feldman Associates v. Allegheny International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
  4. Goldstick v. ICM RealtyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  5. Business Systems Engineering, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API