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.
24 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Best v. Taylor MacHine Worksgreen2 sentences2026“The common law doctrine of joint and several liability provides, in general, that when two or more defendants tortiously contribute to the same, indivisible injury, each defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire injury.” Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 423 (1997). 2007As we explained in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (1997), “ ‘The feasibility of apportioning fault on a comparative basis does not render an indivisible injury “divisible” for purposes of the joint and several liability rule. | 5 | 12 |
West Bend Mutual Insurance v. Mulligan Masonry Co.green2 sentences2007The joint and several liability analysis in Michael Nicholas presumes that the insured assumed the joint and several liability of all the joint and several tortfeasors. *** Joint and several liability is not assumed by a tortfeasor; if it were, it could be disclaimed or avoided by mere iteration.” (Emphasis in original.) West Bend, 337 Ill. 2007The joint and several liability analysis in Michael Nicholas presumes that the insured assumed the joint and several liability of all the joint and several tortfeasors. *** Joint and several liability is not assumed by a tortfeasor; if it were, it could be disclaimed or avoided by mere iteration.” (Emphasis in original.) West Bend, 337 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Coney v. J. L. G. Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1997We note that the proposition which defendants offer as the primary explanation for abolishing the doctrine of joint and several liability, i.e., the assertion that the doctrine requires tortfeasors to pay for more damages than they caused, is at odds with this court's explanation of joint and several liability in Coney, 97 Ill.2d 104 , 73 Ill.Dec. 337 , 454 N.E.2d 197 . 1997We note that the proposition which defendants offer as the primary explanation for abolishing the doctrine of joint and several liability, i.e., the assertion that the doctrine requires tortfeasors to pay for more damages than they caused, is at odds with this court’s explanation of joint and several liability in Coney, 97 Ill. 2d 104 . | 1 | 7 |
Woods v. Colegreen2 sentences2004In Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512, 518 , 693 N.E.2d 333 (1998), the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In general, the common law doctrine of joint and several liability provides that when two or more individuals tortiously contribute to the same, indivisible injury, each individual may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire injury.” As defendants correctly note, contrary to plaintiffs contention, Woods did not hold that section 2 — Ill. is inapplicable whenever a plaintiff suffers an indivisible injury. 2004In Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512, 518 , 693 N.E.2d 333 (1998), the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In general, the common law doctrine of joint and several liability provides that when two or more individuals tortiously contribute to the same, indivisible injury, each individual may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire injury.” As defendants correctly note, contrary to plaintiffs contention, Woods did not hold that section 2 — Ill. is inapplicable whenever a plaintiff suffers an indivisible injury. | 1 | 5 |
Babb v. City of Champaigngreen1 sentence2021In re Guardianship of Babb, 162 Ill. 2d 153, 167-68 (1994). ¶ 34 In our 1977 decision in Skinner, this court abolished the common-law rule prohibiting contribution among joint tortfeasors. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stephens v. McBride
green
2 sentences1992As this court has recently reaffirmed the viability of the doctrine of joint and several liability [citation], plaintiff gains nothing if defendant is permitted to recover contribution from the village." (Emphasis added.) Stephens, 97 Ill. 2d at 524-25 . 1992As this court has recently reaffirmed the viability of the doctrine of joint and several liability [citation], plaintiff gains nothing if defendant is permitted to recover contribution from the village. " (Emphasis added.) Stephens, 97 Ill.2d at 524-25 , 74 Ill.Dec. 24 , 455 N.E.2d 54 . | 2 | 1992–2012 |
Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp.
green
2 sentences2002The jury in this case was not instructed on the common law doctrine of joint and several liability and was not instructed on the effect of section 2-1117. *1049 Nor was the jury instructed on the effect of Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill.2d 155 , 166 Ill.Dec. 1 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991), which holds that the amount in contribution that may be recovered from a third-party defendant who is a plaintiff's employer is limited to the amount of any worker's compensation damages. 2002The jury in this case was not instructed on the common law doctrine of joint and several liability and was not instructed on the effect of section 2-1117. *1049 Nor was the jury instructed on the effect of Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill.2d 155 , 166 Ill.Dec. 1 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991), which holds that the amount in contribution that may be recovered from a third-party defendant who is a plaintiff's employer is limited to the amount of any worker's compensation damages. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Nelson v. Cook
green
1 sentence1994(Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co. (1882), 105 Ill. 462 ; Nelson v. Cook (1856), 17 Ill. 443 .) Thus, due to the doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff could join all tortfeasors in a single action and execute the full amount of judgment against any one or more of the joint tortfeasors. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co.
green
1 sentence1994(Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co. (1882), 105 Ill. 462 ; Nelson v. Cook (1856), 17 Ill. 443 .) Thus, due to the doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff could join all tortfeasors in a single action and execute the full amount of judgment against any one or more of the joint tortfeasors. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package MacHinery Co.
green
1 sentence1994Because the doctrine of joint and several liability allowed the plaintiff to recover fully against any responsible party, the no-contribution rule permitted the " 'entire burden of a loss, for which two defendants were equally, unintentionally responsible, to be shouldered onto one alone, according to the accident of a successful levy of execution, the existence of liability insurance, the plaintiff’s whim or spite, or his collusion with the other wrong-, doer, while the latter goes scot free.’ ” Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package Machinery Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , quoting W. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Paul Harris Furniture Co. v. Morse
green
1 sentence1983Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 302; Paul Harris Furniture Co. v. Morse (1956), 10 Ill. 2d 28, 43 .) Such is not the case here, and the doctrine of joint and several liability has no application. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Justus v. ABEX CORP. DENISON DIV.
neutral
1 sentence1983Citing the Coney decision, this court, in Justus v. Abex Corp. (1983), 117 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.