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.
22 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2021App. 3d 233, 249 (2002) (citing People v. Robinson, 157 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (1993)). 2021App. 3d 233, 249 (2002) (citing People v. Robinson, 157 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (1993)). | 8 | 8 |
Knox College v. Celotex Corp.green2 sentences2012The purpose of the discovery rule is to alleviate the “harsh results resulting from the literal application of the [limitations] statute.” Knox College, 88 Ill. 2d at 414 . ¶ 52 Discovering whether an injury was “wrongfully caused” means the injured party must have (1) sufficient information that its injury was caused by the actions of another and (2) sufficient information “to spark inquiry in a reasonable person as to whether the conduct of the party who caused [the] injury might be legally actionable.” Mitsias, 2011 IL App (1st) 101126, ¶ 22 . 2012The standard applied by the court defeats the purpose of the discovery rule as it appears in the second clause of the statute, which is to “alleviate what has been viewed as harsh results resulting from the literal application of the [limitations] statute.” Knox College, 88 Ill. 2d at 414 . ¶ 57 The court also concluded that Workforce’s claim regarding the Urban-USAF loan was time-barred because it was filed more than one year after Drader’s counsel and Workforce’s -11- counsel engaged in correspondence regarding Drader’s security interest in Urban’s assets. | 2 | 7 |
Freeport Memorial Hospital v. Lankton, Ziegele, Terry & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2019The purpose of the discovery rule is to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of a mechanical application of the statute of limitations that would result in it expiring before a plaintiff even knows of his cause of action.” Henderson Square Condominium Ass’n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC, 2015 IL 118139 , ¶ 52. -8- ¶ 38 “While the time at which a party knows or should reasonably know of both an injury and that it was wrongfully caused is generally a question of fact for the fact finder [citation], where it is apparent from the undisputed facts that only one conclusion can be drawn, the question bec 2018The purpose of the discovery rule is to "ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of a mechanical application of the statute of limitations that would result in it expiring before a plaintiff even knows of his cause of action." Henderson Square Condominium Ass'n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC , 2015 IL 118139 , ¶ 52, 399 Ill.Dec. 387 , 46 N.E.3d 706 . ¶ 38 "While the time at which a party knows or should reasonably know of both an injury and that it was wrongfully caused is generally a question of fact for the fact finder [citation], where it is apparent from the undisputed facts that only one conclusio | 2 | 3 |
Witherell v. Weimergreen2 sentences2019App. 3d 531, 535 (1988) (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligent design and construction action under section 2-619 as untimely filed (citing Knox, 88 Ill. 2d at 416 , and Witherell v. Weimer, 85 Ill. 2d 146, 156 (1981))). ¶ 39 Here, the facts known to M&S are not disputed. 2018App. 3d 531 , 535, 121 Ill.Dec. 388 , 525 N.E.2d 194 (1988) (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's negligent design and construction action under section 2-619 as untimely filed (citing Knox , 88 Ill. 2d at 416 , 58 Ill.Dec. 725 , 430 N.E.2d 976 , and Witherell v. Weimer , 85 Ill. 2d 146 , 156, 52 Ill.Dec. 6 , 421 N.E.2d 869 (1981) ) ). ¶ 39 Here, the facts known to M & S are not disputed. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2021Id. ¶ 73 “The purpose of the discovery rule is to afford the accused protection against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation and to afford the defendant an opportunity to investigate the circumstances from which the evidence arose.” People v. Cunningham, 332 Ill. 2021Id. ¶ 73 “The purpose of the discovery rule is to afford the accused protection against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation and to afford the defendant an opportunity to investigate the circumstances from which the evidence arose.” People v. Cunningham, 332 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Milesgreen2 sentences1999People v. Robinson, 157 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (1993); see People v. Miles, 82 Ill. 1999People v. Robinson , 157 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (1993); see People v. Miles , 82 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.green2 sentences1987(Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976 ; see also Tom Olesker’s Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 129 , 334 N.E.2d 160 (applying the discovery rule to libel actions).) The purpose of the discovery rule is to alleviate harsh results that might result from the literal application of statutes of limitation. 1987(Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976 ; see also Tom Olesker’s Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 129 , 334 N.E.2d 160 (applying the discovery rule to libel actions).) The purpose of the discovery rule is to alleviate harsh results that might result from the literal application of statutes of limitation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The Henderson Square Condominium Association v. LAB Townhomes, LLC
green
2 sentences2019The purpose of the discovery rule is to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of a mechanical application of the statute of limitations that would result in it expiring before a plaintiff even knows of his cause of action.” Henderson Square Condominium Ass’n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC, 2015 IL 118139 , ¶ 52. -8- ¶ 38 “While the time at which a party knows or should reasonably know of both an injury and that it was wrongfully caused is generally a question of fact for the fact finder [citation], where it is apparent from the undisputed facts that only one conclusion can be drawn, the question bec 2018The purpose of the discovery rule is to "ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of a mechanical application of the statute of limitations that would result in it expiring before a plaintiff even knows of his cause of action." Henderson Square Condominium Ass'n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC , 2015 IL 118139 , ¶ 52, 399 Ill.Dec. 387 , 46 N.E.3d 706 . ¶ 38 "While the time at which a party knows or should reasonably know of both an injury and that it was wrongfully caused is generally a question of fact for the fact finder [citation], where it is apparent from the undisputed facts that only one conclusio | 5 | 2016–2019 |
Rozny v. Marnul
green
2 sentences2017There are some actions in which the passage of time, from the instant when the facts giving rise to liability occurred, so greatly increases the problems of proof that it has been deemed necessary to bar plaintiffs who had not become aware of their rights of action within the statutory period as measured from the time such facts occurred. [Citations.] But where the passage of time does little to increase the problems of proof, the ends of justice are served by permitting plaintiff to sue within the statutory period computed from the time at which he knew or should have known of the existence o 2016There are some actions in which the passage of time, from the instant when the facts giving rise to liability occurred, so greatly increases the problems of proof that it has been deemed necessary to bar plaintiffs who had not become aware of their rights of action within the statutory period as measured from the time such facts occurred. [Citations.] But where the passage of time does little to increase the problems of proof, the ends of justice are served by permitting plaintiff to sue within the statutory period computed from the time at which he knew or should have known of the existence o | 3 | 1993–2017 |
Mitsias v. I-Flow Corporation
green
2 sentences2025The purpose of the discovery rule is to “encourage diligent investigation on the part of potential plaintiffs without foreclosing claims of which plaintiffs could not have been aware.” Mitsias v. I-Flow Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 101126, ¶ 21 . 2012The purpose of the discovery rule is to alleviate the “harsh results resulting from the literal application of the [limitations] statute.” Knox College, 88 Ill. 2d at 414 . ¶ 52 Discovering whether an injury was “wrongfully caused” means the injured party must have (1) sufficient information that its injury was caused by the actions of another and (2) sufficient information “to spark inquiry in a reasonable person as to whether the conduct of the party who caused [the] injury might be legally actionable.” Mitsias, 2011 IL App (1st) 101126, ¶ 22 . | 2 | 2012–2025 |
People v. Hood
green
2 sentences2021Id. ¶ 73 “The purpose of the discovery rule is to afford the accused protection against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation and to afford the defendant an opportunity to investigate the circumstances from which the evidence arose.” People v. Cunningham, 332 Ill. 2021Id. ¶ 73 “The purpose of the discovery rule is to afford the accused protection against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation and to afford the defendant an opportunity to investigate the circumstances from which the evidence arose.” People v. Cunningham, 332 Ill. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Washington
green
2 sentences1993(People v. Washington (1989), 182 Ill. 1992Washington, 182 Ill. | 2 | 1992–1993 |
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Kribbs
green
1 sentence2025The limitations period, thus, commences when “the injured person becomes possessed of sufficient information concerning his injury and its cause to put a reasonable person on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct is involved.” Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Kribbs, 2016 IL App (1st) 160672, ¶ 29 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Birge
green
1 sentence1989(People v. Birge (1985), 137 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.