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.
12 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Case v. Galesburg Cottage Hospitalgreen2 sentences2009Section 13-217 is a limitations saving statute, enacted for the purpose of facilitating the disposition of litigation on the merits and avoiding its frustration upon grounds unrelated to the merits. 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2006); Case v. Galesburg Cottage Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 207, 215 , 880 N.E.2d 171, 176 (2007). 2009Section 13-217 is a limitations saving statute, enacted for the purpose of facilitating the disposition of litigation on the merits and avoiding its frustration upon grounds unrelated to the merits. 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2006); Case v. Galesburg Cottage Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 207, 215 , 880 N.E.2d 171, 176 (2007). | 6 | 6 |
Gendek v. Jehangirgreen2 sentences2016Case v. Galesburg Cottage Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 207, 215 (2007); Gendek v. Jehangir, 119 Ill. 2d 338, 343 (1988). ¶ 45 Although the cause of action in Richter II accrued in October 2005, plaintiffs filed Richter I in October 2006, well within the applicable five-year limitations period. 2016Case v. Galesburg Cottage Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 207, 215 (2007); Gendek v. Jehangir, 119 Ill. 2d 338, 343 (1988). ¶ 45 Although the cause of action in Richter II accrued in October 2005, plaintiffs filed Richter I in October 2006, well within the applicable five-year limitations period. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Yorkgreen2 sentences2018With respect to statutory provisions that would apply in this case, the court concluded: "[S]ection 122-1(c) allows a defendant to bypass these time limitations by 'alleg[ing] facts showing that the delay was not due to his or her culpable negligence.' [Citation.] Logically, the trial court must have the discretion to determine whether this standard has been met in the motion to reinstate, which also corresponds to the discretion given to the trial court in section 122-5 to extend 'the time of filing any pleading other than the original petition.' 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2014) ; see York , 2016 2018With respect to statutory provisions that would apply in this case, the court concluded: "[S]ection 122-1(c) allows a defendant to bypass these time limitations by 'alleg[ing] facts showing that the delay was not due to his or her culpable negligence.' [Citation.] Logically, the trial court must have the discretion to determine whether this standard has been met in the motion to reinstate, which also corresponds to the discretion given to the trial court in section 122-5 to extend 'the time of filing any pleading other than the original petition.' 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2014) ; see York , 2016 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Evanston Hospital
green
2 sentences2020Noting that it was a question of first impression, the appellate court held that “the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the one-year limitation period under section 13-217.” Id. at 888 . 2020Noting that it was a question of first impression, the appellate court held that “the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the one-year limitation period under section 13-217.” Id. at 888 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy
green
2 sentences2025The statute provides: “The cause of action, cross claim or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by lapse of time under any statute or contract prescribing or limiting the time within which an action may be brought or right asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if it shall appear from the original and amended pleadings that the cause of action asserted, or the defense or cross claim interposed in the amended pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the original pleading, even though th 2025“Section 13-217 operates as a limitations savings statute, with the purpose of facilitating the disposition of litigation on the merits and avoiding its frustration upon grounds unrelated to its merits.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., 2016 IL 119518 , ¶ 44. ¶ 19 The relation-back doctrine permits an amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the original pleading was timely and the amendment grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the original pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) (West 2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hudson v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2018Plaintiff cannot avoid the refiling limitation of section 13-217 merely by failing to include all of the defendants in each 4 We observe that traditional res judicata principles will bar a subsequent filing only after a final judgment on the merits has been entered in a previous action (Hudson, 228 Ill. 2d at 467 ), which did not occur in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Simms
neutral
2 sentences2018Noting that section 122-5 of the Act gives the circuit court discretion to " 'extend[ ] the time of filing any pleading other than the original petition' " ( id. (quoting 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2004) ) ), petitioner suggested that discretion applied to his filing, an attempt to reinstate his petition 10 years after he withdrew it. ¶ 19 For its part, adopting the temporal limitations of section 13-217 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2014) ) and applying them in this postconviction context, the State accepted the proposition that a postconviction petitioner who voluntarily withdraws his pe 2018Noting that section 122-5 of the Act gives the circuit court discretion to " 'extend[ ] the time of filing any pleading other than the original petition' " ( id. (quoting 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2004) ) ), petitioner suggested that discretion applied to his filing, an attempt to reinstate his petition 10 years after he withdrew it. ¶ 19 For its part, adopting the temporal limitations of section 13-217 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2014) ) and applying them in this postconviction context, the State accepted the proposition that a postconviction petitioner who voluntarily withdraws his pe | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gonzalez v. Thorek Hospital & Medical Center
green
2 sentences1996Gonzalez v. Thorek Hospital & Medical Center, 143 Ill.2d 28, 36-37 , 155 Ill.Dec. 796 , 570 N.E.2d 309 (1991). 1996Gonzalez v. Thorek Hospital & Medical Center, 143 Ill.2d 28, 36-37 , 155 Ill.Dec. 796 , 570 N.E.2d 309 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.