29 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1909–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co.green2 sentences2004The Illinois Supreme Court explained, “Although defaulted, where the action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” Elfrnan v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill. 2d 609, 614 , 190 N.E.2d 348, 351 (1963). 2004The Illinois Supreme Court explained, “Although defaulted, where the action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” Elfrnan v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill. 2d 609, 614 , 190 N.E.2d 348, 351 (1963). | 6 | 9 |
Molden v. Reidgreen2 sentences2019You have nothing to say.” “Although defaulted, where the action is *** for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” Molden v. Reid, 200 Ill. 2017We emphasize that “[t]he mere fact that a defendant is defaulted does not give to the plaintiff a right or claim to the assessment of damages unrelated to liability ***. *** *** Although defaulted, where the action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” Molden v. Reid, 200 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Straus v. Biesengreen2 sentences1977(Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 37 Ill. 2d 609, 614-15 (1963).) As stated in Straus v. Biesen, 242 Ill. 1977(Straus v. Biesen, 242 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Mall Tool Co. v. Far West Equipment Co.green2 sentences2017And a Washington court said, '[a]n unliquidated counterclaim, even when established, does not affect the right to interest prior to judgment on the amount found to be due on a liquidated or determinable claim, since the debtor may not defeat the creditor's right to interest on such a claim by setting up an unliquidated claim as a setoff." Mall Tool Co. v. Far West Equipment Co., 273 P.2d 652, 663 (Wash. 1954). 2017The Mall Tool court explained that "the amount found to be due on a liquidated or determinable claim may be reduced by the amount found to be due on an unliquidated counterclaim or setoff, and *** interest will be allowable only on the balance remaining after the reduction has been made." Mall Tool, 273 P.2d at 663 . | 1 | 1 |
Worthington Corp. v. El Chicote Ranch Properties, Ltd.green1 sentence2017A California court restated the principle: "Ordinarily, where the amount of a demand is sufficiently certain to justify the allowance of interest thereon, the existence of a set-off, counterclaim, or cross claim which is unliquidated will not prevent the recovery of interest on the balance of the demand found due from the time it became due." Worthington Corp. v. El Chicote Ranch Properties, 63 Cal. Rptr. 203, 209 (1967), quoting 47 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
Recreational Development Co. of America v. American Construction Co.green1 sentence2017App. 3d 179, 182 (1988). ¶ 14 However the weight of authority supports the principle that "[e]ntry of an arbitration award on a contract represents a liquidated sum which is within the statute; therefore, it accrues interest. [Citations.] However, where a liquidated claim is offset by an unliquidated claim arising out of the same general transaction, interest is allowed only on the balance due." Recreational Development Co. v. American Construction Co., 749 P.2d 1002, 1004 (Colo. App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
A.F.P. Enterprises, Inc. v. Crescent Pork, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Enterprises, Inc. v. Crescent Pork, Inc., 243 Ill. 2002Enterprises, Inc. v. Crescent Pork, Inc. , 243 Ill. | 3 | 2001–2002 |
Stickler v. McCarthy
neutral
2 sentences2001App. 2d 1 , 212 N.E.2d 723 (1965), aff'd as modified , 37 Ill. 2d 48 , 224 N.E.2d 827 (1967), for the general proposition that where an action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a default does not admit the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. 2001App. 2d 1 , 212 N.E.2d 723 (1965), aff'd as modified , 37 Ill. 2d 48 , 224 N.E.2d 827 (1967), for the general proposition that where an action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a default does not admit the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Stickler v. McCarthy
neutral
2 sentences2001App. 2d 1 , 212 N.E.2d 723 (1965), aff'd as modified , 37 Ill. 2d 48 , 224 N.E.2d 827 (1967), for the general proposition that where an action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a default does not admit the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. 2001App. 2d 1 , 212 N.E.2d 723 (1965), aff’d as modified, 37 Ill. 2d 48 , 224 N.E.2d 827 (1967), for the general proposition that where an action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a default does not admit the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Buckner v. Causey
green
2 sentences2000Buckner, 311 Ill. 2000Buckner , 311 Ill. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Grove v. Winter
green
2 sentences1998Grove v. Winter , 197 Ill. 1998Grove v. Winter, 197 Ill. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Koretz v. All American Life & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1986(Koretz v. All American Life & Casualty Co. (1968), 102 Ill. 1976The burden is on the party asserting this affirmative defense to show a meeting of the minds with intent to compromise an unliquidated debt over which there exists a bona fide dispute. ( Koretz v. All American Life and Casualty Co. (1st Dist. 1968), 102 Ill. | 2 | 1976–1986 |
City of Joliet v. Szayna
green
1 sentence2019App. 3d 495, 502 (1990). "[F]undamental fairness requires that plaintiff be required to prove up its default damages and entitles defendant the opportunity to be heard on said matter." City of Joliet v. Szayna, 2016 IL App (3d) 150092, ¶ 57 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Midwest Steel Erection Co. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund
green
1 sentence2009In re Ancillary Receivership of Ideal Mutual Insurance Co., 218 Ill. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hrubos v. Helfrick
green
1 sentence1997Hrubos, 220 Ill. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Greer v. Ludwick
green
1 sentence1993Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 609 , 190 N.E.2d 348 ; Greer v. Ludwick (1968), 100 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gord Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Aubrey Manufacturing, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993(Gord Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Aubrey Manufacturing, Inc. (1982), 103 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Smith v. Dunaway
green
1 sentence1990App. 2d 1, 5 , 221 N.E.2d 665 .) In Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 609, 614 , 190 N.E.2d 348 , the Illinois Supreme Court criticized the “precipitate manner in which damages were assessed” and stated as follows: “The mere fact that a defendant is defaulted does not give to the plaintiff a right or claim to the assessment of damages unrelated to liability ***.*** *** Although defaulted, where the action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” (See also Goczeski v. Horizon Development Corp. (19 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Graf's Beverages of Illinois, Inc. v. Tauber
green
1 sentence1990App. 3d 6, 9 , 428 N.E.2d 1180 ; Graf's Beverages of Illinois, Inc. v. Tauber, 50 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Goczeski v. Horizon Development Corp.
green
2 sentences1990App. 2d 1, 5 , 221 N.E.2d 665 .) In Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 609, 614 , 190 N.E.2d 348 , the Illinois Supreme Court criticized the “precipitate manner in which damages were assessed” and stated as follows: “The mere fact that a defendant is defaulted does not give to the plaintiff a right or claim to the assessment of damages unrelated to liability ***.*** *** Although defaulted, where the action is in tort or for an unliquidated claim or amount, a defendant nonetheless has the right to be heard on the matter of damages.” (See also Goczeski v. Horizon Development Corp. (19 1990App. 3d 6, 9 , 428 N.E.2d 1180 ; Graf's Beverages of Illinois, Inc. v. Tauber, 50 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brack ex rel. Baumgarte v. Logan
neutral
1 sentence1967Brack for Use of Baumgarte v. Logan, 350 Ill App 425, 113 NE2d 197 (1953). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Steele-Wedeles Co. v. Shoodoc Pond Packing Co.
green
1 sentence1929Defendant contends that the court ruled correctly and for the reason that. “an original attachment will not lie in Illinois for an unliquidated claim,’’ and it cites in support of its position the following cases: Steele-Wedeles Co. v. Shoodoc Pond Packing Co., 153 Ill. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Lepman & Heggie v. Inter-State Produce Co.
neutral
1 sentence1929App. 576 ; Lepman & Heggie v. Inter-State Produce Co., 205 Ill. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Higbie v. Rust
neutral
1 sentence1909This in no way violates the doctrine announced in Higbie v. Rust, 211 Ill. 333 , for there the holding of the court is restricted to a counterclaim for unliquidated damages under a contract entirely foreign to the claim and subject matter of the original suit. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.