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.
20 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P.green2 sentences2022App. 3d at 74 . ¶ 24 In determining abuse of discretion, we consider the four Loyola Academy factors: “ ‘(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.’ ” Hayes Mechanical, Inc., L.P., 351 Ill. 2018In seeking to amend a complaint, "[t]he plaintiff must meet all four Loyola Academy factors [citation], and if the proposed amendment does not state a cognizable claim, and thus, fails the first factor, courts of review will often not proceed with further analysis." Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P. , 351 Ill. | 5 | 8 |
Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc.green2 sentences2026Id. ¶ 18 However, if it would be futile to grant a party leave to amend, we need not consider the Loyola Academy factors. 2026Id. ¶ 18 However, if it would be futile to grant a party leave to amend, we need not consider the Loyola Academy factors. | 3 | 7 |
Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2016However, a number of courts have recognized that these so-called Loyola Academy factors “apply only to amendments that have been proposed prior to final judgment.” Tomm’s Redemption, Inc. v. Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 ; Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 ; Compton v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 382 Ill. 2016See Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 (noting that “[a]fter final judgment, a plaintiff has no statutory right to amend a complaint and a court commits no error by denying a motion for leave to amend”), and Hachem, 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 (noting that it is well settled that the dismissal of a cause of action constitutes a final judgment). ¶ 58 Nevertheless, even if we declined to follow this line of authority and found that application of the Loyola Academy factors was appropriate here, we find that Terra’s proposed amendment to the complaint would not have cured the defect. | 2 | 2 |
Compton v. Country Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2016However, a number of courts have recognized that these so-called Loyola Academy factors “apply only to amendments that have been proposed prior to final judgment.” Tomm’s Redemption, Inc. v. Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 ; Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 ; Compton v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 382 Ill. 2016However, a number of courts have recognized that these so-called Loyola Academy factors “apply only to amendments that have been proposed prior to final judgment.” Tomm’s Redemption, Inc. v. Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 ; Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 ; Compton v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 382 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Tomm's Redemption, Inc. v. Hamergreen2 sentences2016However, a number of courts have recognized that these so-called Loyola Academy factors “apply only to amendments that have been proposed prior to final judgment.” Tomm’s Redemption, Inc. v. Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 ; Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 ; Compton v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 382 Ill. 2016See Hamer, 2014 IL App (1st) 131005, ¶ 14 (noting that “[a]fter final judgment, a plaintiff has no statutory right to amend a complaint and a court commits no error by denying a motion for leave to amend”), and Hachem, 2015 IL App (1st) 143188, ¶ 18 (noting that it is well settled that the dismissal of a cause of action constitutes a final judgment). ¶ 58 Nevertheless, even if we declined to follow this line of authority and found that application of the Loyola Academy factors was appropriate here, we find that Terra’s proposed amendment to the complaint would not have cured the defect. | 2 | 2 |
Myers v. Illinois Central Railroadgreen2 sentences2023Co., 323 Ill. 2023Co., 323 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cangemi v. Advocate South Suburban Hospital
green
2 sentences2010A proposed amendment must meet all four Loyola Academy factors; however, “if [a] proposed amendment does not state a cognizable claim, and thus, fails the first factor, courts of review will often not proceed with further analysis.” Cangemi, 364 Ill. 2010A proposed amendment must meet all four Loyola Academy factors; however, “ ‘if [a] proposed amendment does not state a cognizable claim, and thus, fails the first factor, courts of review will often not proceed with further analysis.’ ” Cangemi, 364 Ill. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Malacina v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board
green
2 sentences2026Under such circumstances, “we may begin and end our analysis with the observation that it is never an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment would be futile.” Malacina v. Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board, 2021 IL App (1st) 191893, ¶ 40 . 2026Under such circumstances, “we may begin and end our analysis with the observation that it is never an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment would be futile.” Malacina v. Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board, 2021 IL App (1st) 191893, ¶ 40 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2025Consequently, we may not speculate as to any errors that may have occurred below (see Edwards, 74 Ill. 2d at 7 ), and we 13 1-23-1959 must further presume that the court’s decision had sufficient factual and legal support (see Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 156-57 ). 2025Consequently, we may not speculate as to any errors that may have occurred below (see Edwards, 74 Ill. 2d at 7 ), and we 13 1-23-1959 must further presume that the court’s decision had sufficient factual and legal support (see Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 156-57 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Consequently, we may not speculate as to any errors that may have occurred below (see Edwards, 74 Ill. 2d at 7 ), and we 13 1-23-1959 must further presume that the court’s decision had sufficient factual and legal support (see Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 156-57 ). 2025Consequently, we may not speculate as to any errors that may have occurred below (see Edwards, 74 Ill. 2d at 7 ), and we 13 1-23-1959 must further presume that the court’s decision had sufficient factual and legal support (see Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 156-57 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Watkins v. Office of the State Appellate Defender
green
2 sentences2023Watkins v. Office of State Appellate Defender, 2012 IL App (1st) 111756, ¶ 34 . ¶ 103 As noted, plaintiff moved to file a third amended complaint seeking to accomplish two purposes: to (1) add a count pursuant to the Family Expense Act alleging that plaintiff had a right to recover his medical bills incurred as a minor pursuant to an assignment from the Hookes or, in the alternative, add the Hookes as party-plaintiffs so that they could allege a right to recover, under the Family Expense Act, medical bills paid on plaintiff’s behalf when he was a minor; and (2) “add back” the ordinary negligen 2023Watkins v. Office of State Appellate Defender, 2012 IL App (1st) 111756, ¶ 34 . ¶ 103 As noted, plaintiff moved to file a third amended complaint seeking to accomplish two purposes: to (1) add a count pursuant to the Family Expense Act alleging that plaintiff had a right to recover his medical bills incurred as a minor pursuant to an assignment from the Hookes or, in the alternative, add the Hookes as party-plaintiffs so that they could allege a right to recover, under the Family Expense Act, medical bills paid on plaintiff’s behalf when he was a minor; and (2) “add back” the ordinary negligen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Taylor v. County of Cook
green
1 sentence2021Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 123700, ¶ 40 ), which occurs when the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take its view (Taylor v. County of Cook, 2011 IL App (1st) 093085, ¶ 23 ). ¶ 46 A. Cure the Defective Pleading -17- No. 1-20-0499 ¶ 47 We consider each of the four Loyola Academy factors in turn, beginning with whether plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2021Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 123700, ¶ 40 ), which occurs when the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take its view (Taylor v. County of Cook, 2011 IL App (1st) 093085, ¶ 23 ). ¶ 46 A. Cure the Defective Pleading -17- No. 1-20-0499 ¶ 47 We consider each of the four Loyola Academy factors in turn, beginning with whether plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.