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 1913–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pavlik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2024“Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Pavlik v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 323 Ill. 2024“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.” Pavlik v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 323 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
Watkins v. Schmittgreen2 sentences2002App. 3d 1060, 1064 (2001) ("[H]earsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule."); Watkins v. Schmitt , 172 Ill.2d 193, 203-04 (1996) ("evidence which would be inadmissible at trial cannot be considered by the court in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment") . 2002App. 3d 1060, 1064 (2001) (“[hjearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule”); Watkins v. Schmitt, 172 Ill. 2d 193, 203-04 (1996) (“evidence which would be inadmissible at trial cannot be considered by the court in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment”). | 2 | 2 |
Kurdi v. Du Page County Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2000See Kurdi v. Du Page County Housing Authority , 161 Ill. 2000See Kurdi v. Du Page County Housing Authority, 161 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Bafia v. City International Trucks, Inc.green1 sentence2002Bafia v. City International Trucks, Inc. , 258 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lawler
green
2 sentences2001People v. Lawler , 142 Ill. 2d 548, 557 , 568 N.E.2d 895 (1991). 2001People v. Lawler , 142 Ill. 2d 548, 557 , 568 N.E.2d 895 (1991). | 4 | 1992–2001 |
2314 Lincoln Park West Condominium Ass'n v. Mann, Gin, Ebel & Frazier, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2014As the supreme court has noted, the “concept of duty” has been “at the - 14 - heart of the distinction drawn by the economic loss rule” (2314 Lincoln Park West, 136 Ill. 2d at 314 ), and the “principle common” to the recognized exceptions to the doctrine is that “the defendant owes a duty in tort to prevent precisely the type of harm, economic or not, that occurred” (id. at 315). 2014As the supreme court has noted, the "concept of duty" has been "at the heart of the distinction drawn by the economic loss rule" (2314 Lincoln Park West, 136 Ill. 2d at 314 ), - 25 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 and the "principle common" to the recognized exceptions to the doctrine is that "the defendant owes a duty in tort to prevent precisely the type of harm, economic or not, that occurred" (id. at 315). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Nguyen v. Johnson MacHine & Press Corp.
green
2 sentences1993Nguyen, 104 Ill. 1991Manh Hung Nguyen v. Johnson Machine & Press Corp. (1982), 104 Ill. | 2 | 1991–1993 |
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Terra Foundation for American Art
green
1 sentence2014As the supreme court has noted, the "concept of duty" has been "at the heart of the distinction drawn by the economic loss rule" (2314 Lincoln Park West, 136 Ill. 2d at 314 ), - 25 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 and the "principle common" to the recognized exceptions to the doctrine is that "the defendant owes a duty in tort to prevent precisely the type of harm, economic or not, that occurred" (id. at 315). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Alfred HH
green
2 sentences2013Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355-61 , 910 N.E.2d at 80-83 . ¶ 20 On appeal, respondent acknowledges the mootness issue and, in his brief, adequately sets forth the recognized exceptions to that doctrine. 2013Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355-61 , 910 N.E.2d at 80-83 . ¶ 20 On appeal, respondent acknowledges the mootness issue and, in his brief, adequately sets forth the recognized exceptions to that doctrine. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Orr
green
1 sentence1991For instance, defendant argues that the statement made when Mr. Small’s body was removed from the grave was a nonhearsay “reaction” rather than a testimonial “assertion.” (See, e.g., People v. Orr (1986), 149 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Camp
green
2 sentences1988(See People v. Camp (1984), 128 Ill. 1988(See People v. Camp (1984), 128 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hernandez v. Johnson Press Corp.
green
1 sentence1982App. 3d 664 , 388 N.E.2d 778 .) The recognized exceptions to this rule are when (1) an express or implied agreement of assumption exists; (2) the transaction amounts to a merger of the seller into the buyer or a consolidation of the two; (3) the buyer is a mere continuation of the seller such as when the buyer comes into existence pursuant to the reorganization of the seller; or (4) the transaction is fraudulent in that it was entered into to allow the seller to escape its liabilities. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences1974(People v. Scott, 100 Ill.App.2d 473, 478 , 241 N.E.2d 579 .) Although the State argues that Officer Browns testimony as to the “rape crime pattern” was important to show that the arrest of defendant was made pursuant to the complaining witness’ description, we are of the opinion that the statements made by Officer Brown do not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of other crimes. 1974(People v. Scott, 100 Ill.App.2d 473, 478 , 241 N.E.2d 579 .) Although the State argues that Officer Browns testimony as to the “rape crime pattern” was important to show that the arrest of defendant was made pursuant to the complaining witness’ description, we are of the opinion that the statements made by Officer Brown do not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of other crimes. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Mayer v. Brensinger
green
1 sentence1913Mayer v. Brensinger, 180 Ill. 110 Grand Pacific Hotel Co. v. Pinkerton, 217 Ill. 61 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Grand Pacific Hotel Co. v. Pinkerton
green
1 sentence1913Mayer v. Brensinger, 180 Ill. 110 Grand Pacific Hotel Co. v. Pinkerton, 217 Ill. 61 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.