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.
20 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative v. City of Sullivangreen2 sentences2009See Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative v. City of Sullivan, 304 Ill. 2008See Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative v. City of Sullivan, 304 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co.green2 sentences2009While a trial court should not grant such a motion unless it is clear that there is no way a plaintiff may recover (see Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 280 (1982)), dismissing a cause pursuant to section 2• — 619 efficiently allows for the disposal of issues of law or easily proved facts early in the litigation process. 2008While a trial court should not grant such a motion unless it is clear that there is no way a plaintiff may recover (see Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 280 (1982)), dismissing a cause pursuant to section 2 — 619 efficiently allows for the disposal of issues of law or easily proved facts early in the litigation process. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Schweihsgreen1 sentence2013In considering Greyhound’s petition for substitution of judge for cause, Judge Locallo, “like any other fact finder, [was required to] weigh the evidence to determine whether the named judge showed prejudice.” In re Marriage of Schweihs, 272 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. City of Chicagogreen1 sentence2011Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94, 99 (2004). ¶9 In this appeal, we must determine whether the circuit court or the Commission has jurisdiction over the claims in Country Insurance’s complaint. | 1 | 1 |
Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2011The underlying appellate court opinion states that the plaintiff filed a “motion for substitution of judge for cause pursuant to section 2- 1001(a)(3).” Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 371 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2009The party seeking substitution must demonstrate, through specific allegations supported by affidavit, facts that, if true, constitute “actual prejudice.” People v. Jones, 219 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2006); In re Estate of Hoellen, 367 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Hoellengreen1 sentence2009The party seeking substitution must demonstrate, through specific allegations supported by affidavit, facts that, if true, constitute “actual prejudice.” People v. Jones, 219 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2006); In re Estate of Hoellen, 367 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Kozloffgreen1 sentence2009The law on moving for a substitution for cause pursuant to section 2 — 1001(a)(3) of the Code states that the moving party must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, actual prejudice. 2 In re Marriage of Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d 526, 532 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
In Re DFgreen1 sentence2002The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that respondent’s motion was premature because it was filed prior to the filing of the State’s motion to terminate parental rights, which “initiated an entirely new proceeding.” 321 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Noyola v. Board of Educ. of Chicagogreen1 sentence1996Noyola v. Board of Education, 284 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Demos v. National Bank of Greecegreen1 sentence1996See Demos v. National Bank, 209 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
THOMPSON BY THOMPSON v. Heydemanngreen1 sentence1995See Thompson, 231 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moscardini v. NEUROSURG, SC
green
2 sentences1996In view of these facts, to rule that the letters, in conjunction with the deposition transcripts and the affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, could not be considered by the trial court in making its probable cause determination under section 2 — 402 would elevate form over substance and create an injustice inconsistent with the legislature’s intent in passing sections 2 — 402 and 2 — 622.” (Moscardini, 269 Ill. 1996App. 3d at 335 , 645 N.E.2d at 1382 .) Accordingly, the probable cause requirement of section 2 — 402 is to be liberally construed, to the end that controversies may be determined according to the substantive rights of the parties. | 3 | 1995–2003 |
Midwest Sanitary Service, Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C.
green
2 sentences2025We reject Tangorra’s invitation to ignore section 10a(a)’s requirement and afford standing to private individuals who do not allege the elements of actual damage and proximate causation from a section 2L violation. ¶ 17 “When interpreting statutory language, we are to give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning, avoiding absurd, unreasonable, unjust, or inconvenient results.” Midwest Sanitary Service, Inc., 2022 IL 127327, ¶ 24 . 2025We reject Tangorra’s invitation to ignore section 10a(a)’s requirement and afford standing to private individuals who do not allege the elements of actual damage and proximate causation from a section 2L violation. ¶ 17 “When interpreting statutory language, we are to give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning, avoiding absurd, unreasonable, unjust, or inconvenient results.” Midwest Sanitary Service, Inc., 2022 IL 127327, ¶ 24 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2003Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill. 2d 134, 149 , 776 N.E.2d 151 (2002); see 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2002). 2003Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill. 2d 134, 149 , 776 N.E.2d 151 (2002); see 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2002). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Cleeton v. SIU Healthcare, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025In Cleeton, the supreme court examined probable cause under section 2- 402 and determined a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that “would cause a person of ordinary caution and prudence to develop an honest and strong suspicion that the purported - 28 - negligence of the respondent was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.” Cleeton, 2023 IL 128651, ¶ 44 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gonzalez v. Profile Sanding Equipment, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Gonzalez, 333 Ill. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Williams v. Medenica
green
2 sentences2003App. 3d at 273 , 655 N.E.2d at 1004 . 2003Rather, “the probable cause requirement of section 2 — 402 should be liberally construed, to the end that controversies may be determined according to the substantive rights of the parties.” Williams, 275 Ill. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Medjesky v. Cole
green
1 sentence2003Medjesky v. Cole, 276 Ill. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Leask v. Hinrichs
green
1 sentence1995App. 3d 332 , 595 N.E.2d 1343 .) Just as with the requirements of section 2—622, we believe that the probable cause requirement of section 2—402 should be liberally construed, to the end that controversies may be determined according to the substantive rights of the parties. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Froehlich v. Sheehan
green
1 sentence1994Froehlich v. Sheehan (1992), 240 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ingle v. Hospital Sisters Health System
green
1 sentence1994(See, e,g., Ingle v. Hospital Sisters Health System (1986), 141 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.