Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
248 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroadgreen2 sentences2004Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 502 (1967) (instant parties citing above as the “Pedrick standard”). 2004Co. , 37 Ill. 2d 494, 502 (1967) (instant parties citing above as the " Pedrick standard"). | 12 | 150 |
Maple v. Gustafsongreen2 sentences2001Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967) (directed verdict); Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 452-53 , 603 N.E.2d 508, 511-12 (1992) (applying Pedrick standard to judgment n.o.v.). 2001Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967) (directed verdict); Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 452-53 , 603 N.E.2d 508, 511-12 (1992) (applying Pedrick standard to judgment n.o.v.). | 6 | 10 |
Sullivan v. Edward Hospitalgreen2 sentences2003App. 3d at 272 , 781 N.E.2d at 655 (both citing and adopting the Pedrick standard for reviewing directed verdicts). 2003App. 3d at 272 , 781 N.E.2d at 655 (both citing and adopting the Pedrick standard for reviewing directed verdicts). | 2 | 2 |
Galarza v. Meltergreen2 sentences2002See Galarza v. Melter, 116 Ill. 2002See Galarza v. Melter, 116 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Livings v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2001See Livings, 26 Ill. 2001See Livings, 26 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Holton v. Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95, 107 , 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1207 (1997). 2000Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95, 107 , 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1207 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
McCraw v. Cegielskigreen2 sentences1998App. 3d 871, 873 , 680 N.E.2d 394, 396 (1996) (judgment n.o.v. may be entered “[although sparse evidence may exist to favor the verdict,” so long as the Pedrick standard is satisfied). 1998App. 3d 871, 873 , 680 N.E.2d 394, 396 (1996) (judgment n.o.v. may be entered “[although sparse evidence may exist to favor the verdict,” so long as the Pedrick standard is satisfied). | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019Department of Transportation v. Smith , 258 Ill. 2019Department of Transportation v. Smith , 258 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green2 sentences2011Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967). ¶ 87 The supreme court has held that a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict “ ‘necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.’ ” Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 Ill. 2d 495, 512 (1988) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). 2011Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967). ¶ 87 The supreme court has held that a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict “ ‘necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.’ ” Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 Ill. 2d 495, 512 (1988) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). | 1 | 2 |
Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co.green2 sentences2011Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967). ¶ 87 The supreme court has held that a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict “ ‘necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.’ ” Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 Ill. 2d 495, 512 (1988) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). 2011Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967). ¶ 87 The supreme court has held that a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict “ ‘necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.’ ” Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 Ill. 2d 495, 512 (1988) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). | 1 | 2 |
Bauer v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1981Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 ; see Bauer v. Johnson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 324, 332-33 ), supports the jury determination on these issues. 1981Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 ; see Bauer v. Johnson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 324, 332-33 ), supports the jury determination on these issues. | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Estate of Ethertongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schmidt v. Archer Iron Works, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Poelker v. Warrensburg-Latham Community Unit School District No. 11green | 1 | 1 |
| Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner Equipment Rental and Excavating Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cope v. Doegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Long v. City of New Bostongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Plattgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bochenek v. Bochenekyellow2 sentences1976But see Bochenek v. Bochenek, 5 Ill. App. 3d 65,68 , where the Pedrick rule was suggested as an analogous standard. 1976But see Bochenek v. Bochenek, 5 Ill. App. 3d 65,68 , where the Pedrick rule was suggested as an analogous standard. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kokinis v. Kotrich
green
2 sentences1989The supreme court in Kokinis v. Kotrich (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 151 , 407 N.E.2d 43 , stated that, contrary to the Pedrick standard (Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. 1989The supreme court in Kokinis v. Kotrich (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 151 , 407 N.E.2d 43 , stated that, contrary to the Pedrick standard (Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. | 7 | 1983–2003 |
Harris v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2024Harris, 2012 IL 112525, ¶ 15 . 2024Harris, 2012 IL 112525, ¶ 15 . | 5 | 2012–2024 |
Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1990Co. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .) Application of the Pedrick standard to medical malpractice cases requires the reviewing court to scrutinize the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of his case. ( Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital (1984), 124 Ill. 1990Co. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .) Application of the Pedrick standard to medical malpractice cases requires the reviewing court to scrutinize the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of his case. ( Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital (1984), 124 Ill. | 5 | 1987–2009 |
City of Evanston v. Ridgeview House, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993(See City of Evanston, 64 Ill. 2d at 57-58 .) Having articulated the standard, we will now address the propriety of the trial court’s order applying the Pedrick rule. 1993(See City of Evanston, 64 Ill. 2d at 57-58 .) Having articulated the standard, we will now address the propriety of the trial court’s order applying the Pedrick rule. | 5 | 1978–1993 |
Jardine v. Rubloff
green
2 sentences1982Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494, 509-10 , and Jardine v. Rubloff (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 31, 35-37 .) My colleagues, in paying lip service to the Pedrick rule, obscure this distinction when they conclude that directing a verdict on the issue of Foresman’s liability was correct. 1982Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494, 509-10 , and Jardine v. Rubloff (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 31, 35-37 .) My colleagues, in paying lip service to the Pedrick rule, obscure this distinction when they conclude that directing a verdict on the issue of Foresman’s liability was correct. | 3 | 1979–1982 |
Lazenby v. Mark's Construction, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Lazenby, 236 Ill. 2d at 100 . 2021Lazenby, 236 Ill. 2d at 100 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Bentley v. Saunemin Township
green
2 sentences1987Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 ; see also Long v. City of New Boston (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 456 , 440 N.E.2d 625 ; Bentley v. Saunemin (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 10 , 413 N.E.2d 1242 .) In applying the Pedrick rule, the evidence presented and the inferences which can be drawn from the circumstances may be considered by the court. 1987Co. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 ; see also Long v. City of New Boston (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 456 , 440 N.E.2d 625 ; Bentley v. Saunemin (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 10 , 413 N.E.2d 1242 .) In applying the Pedrick rule, the evidence presented and the inferences which can be drawn from the circumstances may be considered by the court. | 2 | 1987–2013 |
Jones v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital
green
2 sentences2011Jones v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, 316 Ill. 2011Jones v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, 316 Ill. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Haist v. Wu
green
2 sentences2006Thus, applying the Pedrick standard, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.” Haist v. Wu, 235 Ill. 2006Thus, applying the Pedrick standard, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.” Haist v. Wu, 235 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Ely v. National Super Markets, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997App. 3d 752 , 500 N.E.2d 120 (applying Pedrick standard and reversing malicious prosecution verdict). 1997App. 3d 752 , 500 N.E.2d 120 (applying Pedrick standard and reversing malicious prosecution verdict). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Foster v. Cyrus & Co.
green
2 sentences1989App. 3d 274 , 276 N.E.2d 38 .) Defendants fail to meet the Pedrick standard herein. 1989App. 3d 274 , 276 N.E.2d 38 .) Defendants fail to meet the Pedrick standard herein. | 2 | 1972–1989 |
Haas v. Tomaszek
neutral
2 sentences1987App. 3d 11, 14 , 462 N.E.2d 706 .) The Pedrick rule must be applied with deference to the jury’s primary role as trier of fact (Haas v. Tomaszek (1978), 56 Ill. 1987App. 3d 11, 14 , 462 N.E.2d 706 .) The Pedrick rule must be applied with deference to the jury’s primary role as trier of fact (Haas v. Tomaszek (1978), 56 Ill. | 2 | 1987–1989 |
Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983While the sufficiency of the allegations of plaintiff's complaint is not at issue on appeal since the trial court did not dismiss her complaint, whether the facts adduced support a cause of action based upon the tort of retaliatory discharge, as examined under the Pedrick standard, is certainly before us and requires analysis of the scope of the cause of action for a retaliatory discharge. *769 In Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill.2d 172 , 384 N.E.2d 353 , our supreme court recognized that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge existed and was proved under facts which showed that an 1983While the sufficiency of the allegations of plaintiff's complaint is not at issue on appeal since the trial court did not dismiss her complaint, whether the facts adduced support a cause of action based upon the tort of retaliatory discharge, as examined under the Pedrick standard, is certainly before us and requires analysis of the scope of the cause of action for a retaliatory discharge. *769 In Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill.2d 172 , 384 N.E.2d 353 , our supreme court recognized that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge existed and was proved under facts which showed that an | 2 | 1983–1988 |
Huckabee v. Bell & Howell, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987(Huckabee v. Bell & Howell, Inc. (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 153 , 265 N.E.2d 134 .) This court will determine a case on the record only. 1987(Huckabee v. Bell & Howell, Inc. (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 153 , 265 N.E.2d 134 .) This court will determine a case on the record only. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
McMillen v. Carlinville Area Hospital
green
2 sentences1986McMillen v. Carlinville Area Hospital (1983), 114 Ill. 1986McMillen v. Carlinville Area Hospital (1983), 114 Ill. | 2 | 1984–1986 |
Petrous v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1982Petrous v. Roberts (1973), 12 Ill. 1976App. 3d 992 , 299 N.E.2d 322 , the court rejected the argument that the Pedrick test (Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. | 2 | 1976–1982 |
Gettemy v. Grgula
neutral
2 sentences1978(Gettemy v. Grgula (1975), 25 Ill. 1978(Gettemy v. Grgula (1975), 25 Ill. | 2 | 1976–1978 |
Luker v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1976(Larson v. Harris, 38 Ill. 2d 436 , 231 N.E.2d 421 ; Luker v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., 103 Ill. 1976(Larson v. Harris, 38 Ill. 2d 436 , 231 N.E.2d 421 ; Luker v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., 103 Ill. | 2 | 1969–1976 |
| Larson v. Harris green | 2 | 1969–1976 |
| Williams v. Chicago Osteopathic Health Systems green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Murray v. Chicago Youth Center green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Belleville National Savings Bank v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Cokinis v. Maywood-Proviso State Bank green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Leavitt v. Farwell Tower Ltd. Partnership green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Anderson v. General Grinding Wheel Corp. neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Carman v. Dippold green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Runimas v. Howe neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Spears green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Fooden v. Board of Governors green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Trower v. Jones neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Sloan v. O'DELL green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Trower v. Jones green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Duvall v. Laidlaw neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Robertson v. General Tire & Rubber Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lebrecht v. Tuli green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Fakhoury v. Vapor Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Albaugh v. Cooley green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lewandowski v. Bakey green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Gullberg v. Blue green | 1 | 1986–1986 |