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.
23 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dremco, Inc. v. South Chapel Hill Gardens, Inc.green2 sentences2002Dremco, Inc. v. South Chapel Hills Gardens, 274 Ill. 2002Dremco, Inc. v. South Chapel Hills Gardens, Inc., 274 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
Graham v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2021The core principle of the corporate opportunity doctrine prohibits a fiduciary from usurping business opportunities that belong to the corporation and from using corporate assets to develop those opportunities (see Graham v. Mimms, 111 Ill. 2002The court continued that, “[nevertheless, the ‘core principle’ of the corporate opportunity doctrine is that a corporation’s fiduciary will not be permitted to usurp a business opportunity which was developed through the use of corporate assets.” Thus, when corporate assets are used to develop ah opportunity, “the fiduciary is estopped from denying that the resulting opportunity belongs to the corporation whose assets were misappropriated, even if it was not feasible for the corporation to pursue the opportunity or it had no expectancy in the project.” Graham, 111 Ill. | 2 | 7 |
Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savagegreen2 sentences2026The corporate opportunity doctrine, or usurpation of a corporate opportunity, establishes that “it is a breach of fiduciary obligation for a person to seize for his own advantage a business opportunity which rightfully belongs to the corporation by which he is employed.” Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534, 545-46 (1980). 2025See DePodesta, 2021 IL 125733, ¶ 47 (“Usurpation of a corporate opportunity is a distinct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty that involves *** the taking or seizing of a corporate opportunity and the commensurate loss of that opportunity by the corporation.”); Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534, 545-46 (1980) (“it is a breach of fiduciary obligation for a person to seize for his own advantage a business opportunity which rightfully belongs to the corporation”). ¶ 75 Our supreme court has been clear, however, that an “unsuccessful attempt” to usurp a corporate opportunity | 2 | 4 |
Tarin Ex Rel. Back-Of-The-Yards Cool Heat, Inc. v. Pellonarigreen2 sentences2008Tarin v. Pellonari, 253 Ill. 2008Tarin v. Pellonari, 253 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Indeck Energy Services, Inc. v. DePodestagreen2 sentences2026“Usurpation of a corporate opportunity is a distinct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty that involves a particular type of injury: the taking or seizing of a corporate opportunity and the commensurate loss of that opportunity by the corporation.” Indeck Energy Services, Inc. v. DePodesta, 2021 IL 125733, ¶ 47 . 2025See DePodesta, 2021 IL 125733, ¶ 47 (“Usurpation of a corporate opportunity is a distinct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty that involves *** the taking or seizing of a corporate opportunity and the commensurate loss of that opportunity by the corporation.”); Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534, 545-46 (1980) (“it is a breach of fiduciary obligation for a person to seize for his own advantage a business opportunity which rightfully belongs to the corporation”). ¶ 75 Our supreme court has been clear, however, that an “unsuccessful attempt” to usurp a corporate opportunity | 1 | 2 |
Voyles v. Sandia Mortgage Corp.green1 sentence2026Count III – Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage ¶ 54 CHP next alleges that it pled sufficient facts to support a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage. ¶ 55 To adequately plead a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must allege “(1) a reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the expectancy, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference by the defendant that induced or caused a breach or termination of the expectancy, and (4) damage | 1 | 1 |
Younge v. Bermangreen1 sentence2026Count III – Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage ¶ 54 CHP next alleges that it pled sufficient facts to support a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage. ¶ 55 To adequately plead a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must allege “(1) a reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the expectancy, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference by the defendant that induced or caused a breach or termination of the expectancy, and (4) damage | 1 | 1 |
Lindenhurst Drugs, Inc. v. Beckergreen1 sentence2019Lindenhurst Drugs, Inc. v. Becker, 154 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Kierasgreen1 sentence1994App. 3d at 762 .) Gust and Bakal, as the directors and fiduciaries of Markal, "have the burden of establishing the fairness and propriety of the[ir] transactions.” Shlensky, 19 Ill. 2d at 283 ; see also In re Estate of Kieras (1988), 167 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Shlensky v. South Parkway Building Corp.green2 sentences1994(Kerrigan, 58 Ill. 2d at 30 ; see also Shlensky, 19 Ill. 2d at 278 .) Also, they were governed by "the corporate opportunity doctrine[, which] prohibits a corporation’s fiduciary from taking advantage of business opportunities which are considered as 'belonging’ to the corporation.” (Graham, 111 Ill. 1994App. 3d at 762 .) Gust and Bakal, as the directors and fiduciaries of Markal, "have the burden of establishing the fairness and propriety of the[ir] transactions.” Shlensky, 19 Ill. 2d at 283 ; see also In re Estate of Kieras (1988), 167 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 |
|---|---|---|
Advantage Marketing Group, Inc. v. Keane
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 127 As to the second element, the alleged breach implicates the corporate opportunity doctrine and the prohibition against corporate competition. 2024The corporate opportunity doctrine prohibits a corporation’s fiduciary from taking personal advantage of business opportunities that are “reasonably incident to the corporation’s present or prospective business and *** in which the corporation has the capacity to engage.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Advantage Marketing Group, Inc. v. Keane, 2019 IL App (1st) 181126, ¶ 23 . | 3 | 2021–2024 |
Paulman v. Kritzer
green
2 sentences1982Paulman v. Kritzer (1966), 74 Ill. 1970In Paulman v. Kritzer, 74 Ill App2d 284, 219 NE2d 541 (1966), another derivative suit challenged a director’s personal gain from an activity which should have been offered to the corporation, in violation of the corporate opportunity doctrine. | 2 | 1970–1982 |
Johnson v. Central Standard Life Insurance
green
2 sentences1973Co., 102 Ill.App.2d 15 , 243 N.E.2d 376 .) Plaintiff contends that since 1962 when they organized Plaza, the individual defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties, and in violation of the corporate opportunity doctrine, have wrongfully appropriated Unity’s business opportunity in the sale of fire and casualty insurance. 1973Co., 102 Ill.App.2d 15 , 243 N.E.2d 376 .) Plaintiff contends that since 1962 when they organized Plaza, the individual defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties, and in violation of the corporate opportunity doctrine, have wrongfully appropriated Unity’s business opportunity in the sale of fire and casualty insurance. | 2 | 1970–1973 |
Indeck Energy Services, Inc. v. DePodesta
green
2 sentences2021On the breach of fiduciary duties claim (count IV), the court ruled in favor of plaintiff following a bench trial. ¶2 On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on counts I and IV but reversed on count V. 2019 IL App (2d) 190043 . 2021As it stands, the rule of law established by the majority will allow dishonest fiduciaries to procure opportunities for themselves and strategically contract their way out of the requirements of the corporate opportunity doctrine, thereby avoiding any consequences of usurping corporate opportunities. ¶ 82 As the appellate court pointed out, this case is unusual, as corporate opportunity cases typically involve an opportunity that is available to one party or the other, but not both. 2019 IL App (2d) 190043, ¶ 70 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Drecoll
green
1 sentence2019App. 3d at 477 ; Regal-Beloit, 955 F. Supp. at 864 . ¶ 30 However, Keane argues that the corporate opportunity doctrine as pled in the amended complaint applies to officers and directors, but not employees and, therefore, AMG did not properly plead a breach of fiduciary duty. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Labovitz v. Dolan
green
1 sentence1995App. 3d 403 , 545 N.E.2d 304 , do not stand for the proposition that a court must always examine extrinsic evidence to determine a corporate opportunity violation. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kerrigan v. Unity Savings Association
green
1 sentence1994(Kerrigan, 58 Ill. 2d at 30 ; see also Shlensky, 19 Ill. 2d at 278 .) Also, they were governed by "the corporate opportunity doctrine[, which] prohibits a corporation’s fiduciary from taking advantage of business opportunities which are considered as 'belonging’ to the corporation.” (Graham, 111 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Radiac Abrasives, Inc. v. Diamond Technology, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991(See Radiac Abrasives, Inc. v. Diamond Technology, Inc. (1988), 177 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Melish v. Vogel
green
1 sentence1982App. 3d 125, 135 , 343 N.E.2d 17, 25 .) In addition to this proscription against misappropriating corporate property, the corporate opportunity doctrine prohibits a corporation’s fiduciary from taking advantage of business opportunities which are considered as "belonging” to the corporation (at least as far as the fiduciary is concerned). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Faraclas v. City Vending Co.
green
2 sentences1977In Faraclas v. City Vending Co. (1963), 232 Md. 457 , 194 A.2d 298 , also cited by plaintiffs, the corporation actually resolved to purchase certain of its own stock by unanimous vote of its directors. 1977In Faraclas v. City Vending Co. (1963), 232 Md. 457 , 194 A.2d 298 , also cited by plaintiffs, the corporation actually resolved to purchase certain of its own stock by unanimous vote of its directors. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1970The Johnson decision relied upon the case of Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co., 394 Ill 94, 67 NE2d 265 (1946), where the rule was stated that where a fiduciary has acquired property of the corporation, in violation of the shareholder’s trust, such dealing will be presumed to be fraudulent and the burden of proving his good faith rests upon the fiduciary. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Co. v. Scheckter
green
1 sentence1966In Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Co. v. Scheckter, 400 Pa 405, 162 A2d 400 , the corporation sued some of its directors for purchasing some of its own stock in derogation of their fiduciary obligations as directors. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.