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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Estate of Schlenkergreen2 sentences2018In re Estate of Schlenker , 209 Ill. 2d 456 , 461, 283 Ill.Dec. 707 , 808 N.E.2d 995 (2004) ; 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014). 2018In re Estate of Schlenker , 209 Ill. 2d 456 , 461, 283 Ill.Dec. 707 , 808 N.E.2d 995 (2004) ; 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014). | 3 | 4 |
Bedin v. Northwestern Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence2025Bedin, 2021 IL App (1st) 190723, ¶ 39 (“The absolute litigation privilege is an affirmative defense that may be raised and determined in a motion to dismiss brought under section 2-619.”). ¶ 36 As explained above, we determined that the litigation privilege applied to defeat the second element of a defamation claim (an unprivileged publication of an allegedly defamatory statement to a third party). | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Schneeweisgreen1 sentence2025See In re Marriage of Schneeweis, 2016 IL App (2d) 140147, ¶ 46 (declining to address arguments that were not raised in the trial court). ¶ 45 Forfeiture notwithstanding, Nationstar maintains the acceleration letter was mailed via first class mail, and U.S. Bank argues the Kindts’ allegation that the letter was mailed via certified mail is unsworn, self-serving, and unsupported by the record. ¶ 46 In their reply brief, the Kindts argue, for the first time, that Nationstar improperly moved to dismiss their affirmative defense pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code because it was limited to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lyons v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2002App. 3d 1094, 1101 , 756 N.E.2d 396 (2001) (the standing issue here is both jurisdictional and constitutional in nature; the fact that standing is an affirmative defense under section 2-619 does not preclude it from being jurisdictional). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Health Cost Controls v. Sevilla
green
1 sentence2000Health Cost Controls v. Sevilla, 307 Ill. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge
green
1 sentence1999Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange , 156 Ill. 2d at 115 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.