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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Peoria v. Illinois State Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2008Consistent with this holding, in construing its duties under section 9 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/9 (West 2006)), the Board has traditionally disfavored severance of employees from existing bargaining units because of “the policy against disrupting existing stable bargaining relationships. ” 11 See County of Peoria v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 305 Ill. 2008Consistent with this holding, in construing its duties under section 9 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/9 (West 2006)), the Board has traditionally disfavored severance of employees from existing bargaining units because of “the policy against disrupting existing stable bargaining relationships.”11 See County of Peoria & Sheriff of Peoria County v. Illinois Sate Labor Relations Board, 305 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n v. Crescent Heights
green
2 sentences2014We found that the purpose of section 18.2(d)(2) is to “facilitate the ability of unit owners (other than the developer) to verify that the developer has complied with its duty under section 9(a) of the [Act] to pay assessments on unsold units commencing on the date of the sale of the first unit and complied with its duty under sections 18.2(a) and 18.4(d) of the [Act] to collect assessments from unit owners until election of the first unit-owner board.” Metropolitan, 368 Ill. 2014We found that the purpose of section 18.2(d)(2) is to "facilitate the ability of unit owners (other than the developer) to verify that the developer has complied with its duty under section 9(a) of the [Act] to pay assessments on unsold units commencing on the date of the sale of the first unit and complied with its duty under sections 18.2(a) and 18.4(d) of the [Act] to 47 No. 1-13-0764 collect assessments from unit owners until election of the first unit-owner board." Metropolitan, 368 Ill. | 4 | 2014–2014 |
Board of Managers of Weathersfield Condominium Ass'n v. Schaumburg Ltd. Partnership
green
2 sentences2014Weathersfield, 307 Ill. 2014Weathersfield, 307 Ill. | 4 | 2014–2014 |
Purcell & Wardrope Chartered v. Hertz Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Purcell & Wardrope, 175 Ill. App. 3d at 1082 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Steinmetz v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.
green
1 sentence1998The court found the lessors’ duties under section 9 — 207 to be “not entirely consistent” with those under the more specific state law governing deposits, leaving the court doubtful “the New York legislature intended such an arbitrary result.” Steinmetz, 963 F. Supp. at 1304 . | 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.