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.
26 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarottogreen2 sentences2012Id. ¶ 19 Here, the state law contract defense on which the appellate court relied when it invalidated the arbitration agreements is a lack of mutuality of obligation. 2008Notwithstanding the facts that a violation of public policy can be a legitimate generally applicable defense to all contracts in Illinois and that the protections found in sections 3-606 and 3-607 of the Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/3-606, 3- 607 (West 2006)) represent "emphatically stated public policy" that has existed in this state for nearly 30 years, the defendant contends that in this particular case the state law contract defense of a violation of public policy is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because 5 the public policy expressed in sections 3-606 and 3-607 is not appl | 4 | 4 |
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.red2 sentences2015Id. at 63-87 (plurality opinion), 91 (Rehnquist, J., concurring, joined by O'Connor, J.). 2015Id. at 63-87 (plurality opinion), 91 (Rehnquist, J., concurring, joined by O’Connor, J.). | 2 | 2 |
DiCosola v. Ryangreen1 sentence2026However, an agreement to arbitrate “may be invalidated by a state law contract defense of general applicability, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 18 . ¶ 19 A. Arbitration Agreement -7- No. 1-25-1948 ¶ 20 BSA first argues that it is not a party to the attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision and Wrubel had no authority to enter into that agreement. ¶ 21 The promoter of a company “ ‘actively assists in creating, projecting and organizing a corporation.’ ” DiCosola v. Ryan, 2015 IL App (1st) 150007, ¶ 14 ( | 1 | 1 |
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLCgreen1 sentence2024“A finding of unconscionability may be based on either procedural or substantive unconscionability, or a combination of both.” Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Bain v. Airoom, LLCgreen1 sentence2023“Like other contracts, however, an arbitration agreement ‘may be invalidated by a state law contract defense of general applicability, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.’ ” Bain, 2022 IL App (1st) 211001, ¶ 21 (quoting Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 18 ). ¶ 26 Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because Kathy lacked authority to bind Mae to the agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Curto v. Illini Manors, Inc.green1 sentence2023“Whether a nonsignatory party is bound to an arbitration agreement is dictated by the ordinary principles of contract and agency.” Curto v. Illini Manors, Inc., 405 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Company
green
2 sentences2026However, an agreement to arbitrate “may be invalidated by a state law contract defense of general applicability, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 18 . ¶ 19 A. Arbitration Agreement -7- No. 1-25-1948 ¶ 20 BSA first argues that it is not a party to the attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision and Wrubel had no authority to enter into that agreement. ¶ 21 The promoter of a company “ ‘actively assists in creating, projecting and organizing a corporation.’ ” DiCosola v. Ryan, 2015 IL App (1st) 150007, ¶ 14 ( 2026Procedural Unconscionability ¶ 27 BSA further argues the arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable because defendants never sufficiently informed Wrubel of the ramifications of agreeing to arbitrate a legal malpractice claim. ¶ 28 An arbitration agreement is a contract and “may be invalidated by a state law contract defense of *** unconscionability.” Carter, 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 18 . | 12 | 2021–2026 |
Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC
green
2 sentences2010This trial court believes that in the aggregate the economic activity does not represent general practice subject to federal control.” The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, but did so on the basis of a single question of law— whether the “public policy” expressed in the Nursing Home Care Act was an ordinary state-law contract defense applicable to all contracts, and thus beyond the preemptive effect of the FAA. 381 Ill. 2010This trial court believes that in the aggregate the economic activity does not represent general practice subject to federal control.” The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, but did so on the basis of a single question of law–whether the “public policy” expressed in the Nursing Home Care Act was an ordinary state-law contract defense applicable to all contracts, and thus beyond the preemptive effect of the FAA. 381 Ill. | 5 | 2009–2010 |
United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc., 2012 WL 4473236 , at *9 (citing Quality Built Construction, Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d at 778-79 ). 2015Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc., 2012 WL 4473236 , at *9 (citing Quality Built Construction, Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d at 778-79 ). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Perry v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2008Ed. 2d 902, 907 , 116 S. Ct. 1652, 1655 (1996) (quoting Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 492 n.9, 96 L. 2008Ed. 2d 902, 907 , 116 S. Ct. 1652, 1655 (1996) (quoting Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 492 n.9, 96 L. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Tin Cup Pass Ltd. Partnership v. Daniels
green
1 sentence2026However, an agreement to arbitrate “may be invalidated by a state law contract defense of general applicability, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 18 . ¶ 19 A. Arbitration Agreement -7- No. 1-25-1948 ¶ 20 BSA first argues that it is not a party to the attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision and Wrubel had no authority to enter into that agreement. ¶ 21 The promoter of a company “ ‘actively assists in creating, projecting and organizing a corporation.’ ” DiCosola v. Ryan, 2015 IL App (1st) 150007, ¶ 14 ( | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nicholas Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 861 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Baselski v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Ill. 1981), 514 F. Supp. 535 , such claims are properly arbitrable. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.