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.
11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foutch v. O'BRYANTgreen2 sentences2021See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). ¶ 19 Finally, defendant argues that he had a right to refile his petition within one year under section 13-217 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)). 2021See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). ¶ 19 Finally, defendant argues that he had a right to refile his petition within one year under section 13-217 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Winger v. Franciscan Medical Centergreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Winger v. Franciscan Medical Center, 299 Ill.App.3d 364, 369 , 233 Ill.Dec. 748 , 701 N.E.2d 813 (1998) (claims under the Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/0.01 et seq. 2003See, e.g., Winger v. Franciscan Medical Center, 299 Ill.App.3d 364, 369 , 233 Ill.Dec. 748 , 701 N.E.2d 813 (1998) (claims under the Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/0.01 et seq. | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Daley v. Fitzgeraldgreen1 sentence2024Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill. 2d 175, 183 (1988) (“we do not believe that the absence from the criminal discovery rules of any reference to post-conviction matters was intended to eliminate the inherent authority of the circuit courts in that regard”). ¶ 24 Furthermore, in Simms, 2018 IL 122378 , our supreme court held that the one-year reinstatement provision in section 13-217 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2022)) applies to postconviction petitions that are voluntarily withdrawn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flesner v. Youngs Development Co.
green
2 sentences2024It does not matter why the first refiling was dismissed (see id.), nor does it matter whether the applicable statutes of limitations have expired (see Flesner, 145 Ill. 2d at 254 ). 2024It does not matter why the first refiling was dismissed (see id.), nor does it matter whether the applicable statutes of limitations have expired (see Flesner, 145 Ill. 2d at 254 ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Timberlake v. Illini Hospital
green
2 sentences2024As this court expressly held in Flesner [citation], section 13-217 permits one, and only one, refiling of a claim.” Id. at 165 . ¶ 10 Thus, because the Wares’ initial action was “dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction” (see 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2022)), thereby invoking the savings provision of section 13-217, and because the instant case is the second time that the Wares have refiled their claims against Best Buy, the present action is barred by the single-refiling rule of section 13-217. 2024As this court expressly held in Flesner [citation], section 13-217 permits one, and only one, refiling of a claim.” Id. at 165 . ¶ 10 Thus, because the Wares’ initial action was “dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction” (see 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2022)), thereby invoking the savings provision of section 13-217, and because the instant case is the second time that the Wares have refiled their claims against Best Buy, the present action is barred by the single-refiling rule of section 13-217. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Kahle v. John Deere Co.
green
1 sentence2026People v. Simms, 2018 IL 122378, ¶ 47 . ¶ 21 In Kahle, our supreme court observed that a plaintiff who voluntarily withdraws their complaint cannot appeal the order since (1) they requested it and (2) their right to refile protects them from prejudice by the statute of limitations. 104 Ill. 2d at 306 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Simms
neutral
1 sentence2017Id. ¶ 28 Returning to the case law cited by the parties, we observe that this situation is distinguishable from English because the court there held that a defendant is entitled to the automatic reinstatement of a voluntarily withdrawn postconviction petition within one year after its withdrawal, whereas in this case defendant sought to reinstate his petition well after one year. - 11 - 2017 IL App (2d) 141251 Therefore, as in Macri, we need not decide whether we agree with English’s position on automatic reinstatement. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hudson v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2013Plaintiff argues there was never an adjudication on the merits of “any” BankFinancial I cause of action and all of the cases relied on by defendants to hold BankFinancial II was barred by res judicata, Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462 (2008), and its progeny, are distinguishable as each involved involuntary dismissal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kristan v. Belmont Community Hospital
green
2 sentences1998Kristan v. Belmont Community Hospital, 51 Ill.App.3d 523 , 9 Ill.Dec. 557 , 366 N.E.2d 1068 (1977). 1998Kristan v. Belmont Community Hospital, 51 Ill.App.3d 523 , 9 Ill.Dec. 557 , 366 N.E.2d 1068 (1977). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.