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.
33 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co.green2 sentences2024A section 2-619 motion to dismiss “admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim.” Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 578-79 (2006). 2021Slander and Libel § 83 (1970)). ¶ 20 A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure “admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim.” Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006). | 13 | 13 |
Provenzale v. Foristergreen2 sentences2026See Provenzale v. Forister, 318 Ill. 2025See Provenzale v. Forister, 318 Ill. | 6 | 6 |
Wallace v. Smythgreen2 sentences2015Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 ; Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441 , 447 (2002). 2015Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 ; Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441 , 447 (2002). | 3 | 5 |
Fitch v. McDermott, Will and Emery, LLPgreen2 sentences2010Fitch v. McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, 401 Ill. 2010Fitch v. McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, 401 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Knox College v. Celotex Corp.green1 sentence2025“If not, the motion must be granted, ‘regardless of how many conclusions the count may contain and regardless of whether or not they inform the defendant in a general way of the nature of the claim against him.’ ” Id. at 368- 69 (quoting Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 426 (1981)). ¶ 19 As noted above, a motion to dismiss under section 2-615(a) challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, while a motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a) admits the legal sufficiency of the claim but raises certain defects or defenses outside of the pleading that defeat the claim. | 1 | 1 |
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevichgreen1 sentence2024A section 2-619 motion also “admits as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts.” Cahokia Unit School District No. 187 v. Pritzker, 2021 IL 126212, ¶ 24 . ¶ 20 When reviewing the ruling on a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, we “must construe the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. “[A] cause of action should not be dismissed with prejudice unless it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.” Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 47 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. The City of Naperville
green
2 sentences2016Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 , 976 N.E.2d 318 . 2016Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 , 976 N.E.2d 318 . | 8 | 2015–2016 |
In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D.
green
2 sentences2018Conversely, "[a] motion to dismiss under section 2-619 [citation] admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim." In re Scarlett Z.-D. , 2015 IL 117904 , ¶ 20, 390 Ill.Dec. 123 , 28 N.E.3d 776 . 2018Conversely, "[a] motion to dismiss under section 2-619 [citation] admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim." In re Scarlett Z.-D. , 2015 IL 117904 , ¶ 20, 390 Ill.Dec. 123 , 28 N.E.3d 776 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
green
1 sentence2025“If not, the motion must be granted, ‘regardless of how many conclusions the count may contain and regardless of whether or not they inform the defendant in a general way of the nature of the claim against him.’ ” Id. at 368- 69 (quoting Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 426 (1981)). ¶ 19 As noted above, a motion to dismiss under section 2-615(a) challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, while a motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a) admits the legal sufficiency of the claim but raises certain defects or defenses outside of the pleading that defeat the claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cahokia Unit School District No. 187 v. Pritzker
green
2 sentences2024A section 2-619 motion also “admits as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts.” Cahokia Unit School District No. 187 v. Pritzker, 2021 IL 126212, ¶ 24 . ¶ 20 When reviewing the ruling on a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, we “must construe the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. “[A] cause of action should not be dismissed with prejudice unless it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.” Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 47 2024A section 2-619 motion also “admits as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts.” Cahokia Unit School District No. 187 v. Pritzker, 2021 IL 126212, ¶ 24 . ¶ 20 When reviewing the ruling on a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, we “must construe the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. “[A] cause of action should not be dismissed with prejudice unless it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.” Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 47 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence2015However, the court correctly recognized the distinction between waiver and forfeiture: “ ‘[w]hile waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right, forfeiture is the failure to timely comply with procedural requirements.’ ” 2014 IL App (2d) 120266-B , ¶ 22 n.3 (quoting Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co., 227 Ill. 2d 302 , 320 n.2 (2008)). -4- section 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)) admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.