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.
29 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 (an allegation of voidness substitutes and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence under section 2-1401). 2015See, e.g., Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 (an allegation of voidness substitutes and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence under section 2-1401). | 4 | 6 |
People v. Harveygreen2 sentences2019Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 104-05 (2002); People v. Harvey, 196 Ill. 2d 444, 452-53 (2001) (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.). 2018Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education , 201 Ill. 2d 95 , 104-05, 267 Ill.Dec. 58 , 776 N.E.2d 195 (2002) ; People v. Harvey , 196 Ill. 2d 444 , 452-53, 257 Ill.Dec. 98 , 753 N.E.2d 293 (2001) (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.). | 2 | 3 |
Ameritech Publishing of Illinois, Inc. v. Hadyehgreen2 sentences2015Those circumstances do not exist here. ¶ 60 “Relaxation of the due diligence requirement thereby entitling a defendant to a motion to vacate a judgment is justified only under extraordinary circumstances.” Ameritech Publishing - 16 - of Illinois, Inc. v. Hadyeh, 362 Ill. 2006Additionally, although a circuit court may decline to impute counsel's negligence to a litigant in the existence of mitigating circumstances, this court has observed that relaxation of the due diligence requirement under section 2-1401 is "justified only under extraordinary circumstances." Ameritech, 362 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Vincentgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8 (noting that a section 2- 1401 petition may be dismissed upon a challenge that, even taking as true its allegations, it does not state a meritorious defense or diligence under section 2-1401 case law); HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee for First NLC Trust 2005-4 Mortgage Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4, 2020 IL App (1st) 190203-U, ¶¶ 14-15 (holding that the defendants’ failure to explain why they waited 19 months after final judgment was entered to file their section 2-1401 petition was fatal); Addison, 2016 IL App (5th) 150346-U, ¶ 14 (affirming dismissal 2026Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8 (noting that a section 2-1401 petition may be dismissed upon a challenge that, even taking as true its allegations, it does not state a meritorious defense or diligence under section 2-1401 case law); see also Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1982); Morris, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 323. | 1 | 6 |
Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co.green2 sentences2026Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8 (noting that a section 2-1401 petition may be dismissed upon a challenge that, even taking as true its allegations, it does not state a meritorious defense or diligence under section 2-1401 case law); see also Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1982); Morris, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 323. 2007"Like a complaint, the petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action or if, on its face, it shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Klein v. La Salle National Bank, 155 Ill.2d 201, 205 , 184 Ill.Dec. 420 , 613 N.E.2d 737 (1993), citing Ostendorf, 89 Ill.2d at 279-80 , 60 Ill.Dec. 456 , 433 N.E.2d 253 ; Brockmeyer, 18 Ill.2d at 505 , 165 N.E.2d 294 . | 1 | 2 |
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co.green1 sentence2026Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 202 Ill. 2d 344, 351-52 (2002). ¶ 13 Accordingly, at the conclusion of the previous appeal, our mandate to the circuit court was as follows: “Because we find that a summary judgment was inappropriate due to material questions of fact regarding the due diligence element of Kimberly’s section 2-1401 petition, or whether equity requires relaxation of the due diligence requirement, we reverse the January 31, 2020, order on that basis. | 1 | 1 |
In re Detention of Morrisgreen1 sentence2026Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8 (noting that a section 2-1401 petition may be dismissed upon a challenge that, even taking as true its allegations, it does not state a meritorious defense or diligence under section 2-1401 case law); see also Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 279-80 (1982); Morris, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 323. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of America, N.A. v. Lucagreen1 sentence2024See Bank of America, 2013 IL App (3d) 120601, ¶ 14 (we may affirm a trial court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record). ¶ 55 Goodberlet maintains that public policy favors the determination of controversies according to the parties’ substantive rights. | 1 | 1 |
In re Application of the County Collectorgreen1 sentence2021To read section 22-45 of the Tax Code in any other way would ignore the language contained therein specifying that relief is only available “in the same manner and to the same extent” as is permitted under section 2-1401, and would require us to “depart from the plain language of the statute and read into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that are not consistent with the express legislative intent.” Hendricks, 2015 IL App (3d) 140858, ¶ 14 ; see also, In re County Collector, 2016 IL App (3d) 150712, ¶ 19 (concluding that because the tax deed at issue there was at most voidable, rather | 1 | 1 |
The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, IL v. Chicago Title and Trust Companygreen2 sentences2020The District focuses its attention to the first sentence of the pertinent section in Warren County—“when the facts supporting the section 2-1401 petition are challenged by the respondent, a full and fair evidentiary hearing should be held”—and turns a blind eye to the sentence that follows—“the trial court may also consider equitable considerations to relax the applicable due diligence standards under the appropriate limited circumstances.” Id. ¶ 51 Based on Warren County, we concluded in Forest Preserve District, 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶86 , that no evidentiary hearing was necessary to sup 2020See The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois v. Chicago Title and Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 131925 (Forest Preserve District). ¶ 32 On appeal before this Court, the District claimed the trial court committed reversible error when it found that Hoger satisfied the due diligence requirements of section 2-1401. | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Devine v. Murphygreen1 sentence2015See Devine, 181 Ill. 2d at 539 . ¶ 31 As for the due diligence requirement of section 2-1401, I believe that the School Districts satisfied that requirement as well. | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Murdockgreen1 sentence2012Parker v. Murdock, 2011 IL App (1st) 101645, ¶¶ 18, 20 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Brodaygreen1 sentence1998See In re Marriage of Broday , 256 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Frostin v. Radickgreen2 sentences1996See Frostin, 78 Ill.App.3d 352, 354 , 33 Ill.Dec. 875, 877 , 397 N.E.2d 208, 210 ("where a defendant forwards his complaint and summons to his insurer, then makes repeated inquiries into the progress of his defense, he has been sufficiently diligent in looking after his interest that he will be allowed to reopen a default judgment"). 1996See Frostin, 78 Ill.App.3d 352, 354 , 33 Ill.Dec. 875, 877 , 397 N.E.2d 208, 210 ("where a defendant forwards his complaint and summons to his insurer, then makes repeated inquiries into the progress of his defense, he has been sufficiently diligent in looking after his interest that he will be allowed to reopen a default judgment"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Parks
green
2 sentences2017(In re Marriage of Parks (1984), 122 Ill. 2016(In re Marriage of Parks (1984), 122 Ill. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
In Re Marriage of Roepenack
green
2 sentences2015She cites In re Marriage of Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198 , in support of her argument that the due diligence requirement of section 2-1401 is not strictly enforced when there is fraud or unfair conduct. 2015She cites In re Marriage of Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198 , in support of her argument that the due diligence requirement of section 2-1401 is not strictly enforced when there is fraud or unfair conduct. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Cavalry Portfolio Services v. Rocha
green
2 sentences2015Fanady cites to Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690 , in which the court held: “a trial court ruling denying section 2-1401 relief can be vacated even in the absence of diligence where the defendant has a meritorious defense and actively seeks to vacate the judgment. [Citation.] More important than the due diligence requirement is the requirement that substantial justice be achieved.” Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690, ¶ 18 . 2015Fanady cites to Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690 , in which the court held: “a trial court ruling denying section 2-1401 relief can be vacated even in the absence of diligence where the defendant has a meritorious defense and actively seeks to vacate the judgment. [Citation.] More important than the due diligence requirement is the requirement that substantial justice be achieved.” Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690, ¶ 18 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
In Re Marriage of Johnson
green
1 sentence2026Johnson, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 243 . 8 ¶ 23 In so relying, the circuit court, citing the mandate of this court’s remand to resolve the material questions of fact regarding the due diligence element of the Kimberly’s section 2-1401 petition, including “whether equity requires relaxation of the due diligence requirement” (Weeks, 2021 IL App (5th) 200043-U, ¶ 49 ), specifically considered and examined the circumstances and conditions under which the January 6, 2012, MSA was executed and the judgment of dissolution was entered. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Smith v. Airoom, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Citing Airoom, plaintiff argues that the court should not have examined plaintiff’s diligence in the original action at all and instead could only consider plaintiff’s diligence in filing for relief under section 2-1401 after the case was dismissed. 114 Ill. 2d at 224 . ¶ 17 Airoom and later cases make clear, however, that it is both the party’s diligence in the section 2-1401 proceedings and diligence in presenting its claims in the original action that the court must consider in deciding whether to grant the petition. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fiala v. Schulenberg
green
2 sentences2023The petitioner must show that “his failure to defend is the result of an excusable mistake and that under the circumstances, he acted reasonably and not negligently when he failed to resist the judgment.” Id. 2023Having determined above that the circuit court properly denied the Amended Petition on the basis that Section 2-1401 did not provide Plaintiff the relief he sought, we nonetheless review the second portion of its decision as well. ¶ 40 Due diligence pursuant to Section 2-1401 requires that the petitioner have a reasonable excuse for failing to act within the appropriate time; the purpose of Section 2-1401 is not to allow the petitioner relief from “the consequences of his own mistake or neglect, and he is not entitled to relief unless he shows that, through no fault or negligence of his own, t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Marks v. Rueben H. Donnelley, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020She argues that the court’s reliance upon Giles for the proposition that litigants are bound by the mistakes and negligence of their attorney, is not necessarily true, and that her situation should be judged by the principles of justice and fairness. ¶ 36 Plaintiff relies upon cases that have applied a more lenient due diligence standard under section 2-1401 (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014), which has been previously rejected by this court in Marks, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 1048 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District v. Walters
green
1 sentence2020The District focuses its attention to the first sentence of the pertinent section in Warren County—“when the facts supporting the section 2-1401 petition are challenged by the respondent, a full and fair evidentiary hearing should be held”—and turns a blind eye to the sentence that follows—“the trial court may also consider equitable considerations to relax the applicable due diligence standards under the appropriate limited circumstances.” Id. ¶ 51 Based on Warren County, we concluded in Forest Preserve District, 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶86 , that no evidentiary hearing was necessary to sup | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Helmig v. John F. Kennedy Community Consolidated School District No. 129
green
1 sentence2015“Where the effect of the challenged action is generalized, speculative or de minimus, the complaining party will not have standing.” Id. - 15 - became inaccurate to continue to view the relief in strictly equitable terms” and “relief [under section 2-1401] is no longer purely discretionary.” Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 16 . ¶ 58 The Vincent holding notwithstanding, courts have created equitable exceptions to the due diligence requirement of section 2-1401. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brockmeyer v. Duncan
green
2 sentences2007"Like a complaint, the petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action or if, on its face, it shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Klein v. La Salle National Bank, 155 Ill.2d 201, 205 , 184 Ill.Dec. 420 , 613 N.E.2d 737 (1993), citing Ostendorf, 89 Ill.2d at 279-80 , 60 Ill.Dec. 456 , 433 N.E.2d 253 ; Brockmeyer, 18 Ill.2d at 505 , 165 N.E.2d 294 . 2007"Like a complaint, the petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action or if, on its face, it shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Klein v. La Salle National Bank, 155 Ill.2d 201, 205 , 184 Ill.Dec. 420 , 613 N.E.2d 737 (1993), citing Ostendorf, 89 Ill.2d at 279-80 , 60 Ill.Dec. 456 , 433 N.E.2d 253 ; Brockmeyer, 18 Ill.2d at 505 , 165 N.E.2d 294 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Klein v. La Salle National Bank
green
2 sentences2007"Like a complaint, the petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action or if, on its face, it shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Klein v. La Salle National Bank, 155 Ill.2d 201, 205 , 184 Ill.Dec. 420 , 613 N.E.2d 737 (1993), citing Ostendorf, 89 Ill.2d at 279-80 , 60 Ill.Dec. 456 , 433 N.E.2d 253 ; Brockmeyer, 18 Ill.2d at 505 , 165 N.E.2d 294 . 2007"Like a complaint, the petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action or if, on its face, it shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Klein v. La Salle National Bank, 155 Ill.2d 201, 205 , 184 Ill.Dec. 420 , 613 N.E.2d 737 (1993), citing Ostendorf, 89 Ill.2d at 279-80 , 60 Ill.Dec. 456 , 433 N.E.2d 253 ; Brockmeyer, 18 Ill.2d at 505 , 165 N.E.2d 294 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.