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.
19 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Curran Townshipgreen2 sentences2021Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466, 477 (1995). 2019Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466, 477 (1995). | 3 | 4 |
Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist.green2 sentences2025Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 368 . 2022Id. at 368 . ¶ 31 Plaintiff’s argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in dismissing counts II and III against the Frazier defendants based on the court’s construction of section 2-105 as conferring a “blanket immunity” for a local public entity against any allegation of liability based on its negligent inspection of any type of property that it does not own. 2 Plaintiff contends that the court failed to properly consider that section 2-105 only immunizes the local public entity for its negligent performance of a particular type of inspection, specifically, an inspection “to determine | 1 | 3 |
Monson v. City of Danvillegreen2 sentences2022“The purpose of the Act is to prevent the dissipation of public funds on damage awards in tort cases. [Citation.] Unless a specific immunity provision in the Act applies, a public entity is liable in tort to the same extent as a private party. [Citation.] Since the Act is in derogation of the common law, it must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486, ¶ 15 . 2022Because the Tort Immunity Act “is in derogation of the common law, it must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Trtanj ex rel. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. City of Granite Citygreen2 sentences2020Trtanj v. City of Granite City, 379 Ill. 2014Id. at 803 . ¶ 34 The College argues that its handling of the sidewalk deviation in this case involved a discretionary act and that it is entitled to immunity under sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act. | 1 | 2 |
Aikens v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2019Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466, 477 (1995); Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill. 2d 273, 277-78 (1991). ¶ 16 The trial court granted summary judgment to the City on the grounds that it was entitled to immunity under sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. 2018Snyder v. Curran Township , 167 Ill. 2d 466 , 477, 212 Ill.Dec. 643 , 657 N.E.2d 988 (1995) ; Aikens v. Morris , 145 Ill. 2d 273 , 277-78, 164 Ill.Dec. 571 , 583 N.E.2d 487 (1991). ¶ 16 The trial court granted summary judgment to the City on the grounds that it was entitled to immunity under sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanley v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2012Hanley v. City of Chicago, 343 Ill. 2008Hanley v. City of Chicago, 343 Ill. | 4 | 2008–2012 |
Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
green
2 sentences2025“Since the Tort Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law, it must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Andrews v. Metropolitan Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 2019 IL 124283 , ¶ 23. ¶ 60 As noted above, the Tort Immunity Act states that a local public entity has a duty to “maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.” 745 ILCS 10/3-102 2025“Since the Tort Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law, it must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Andrews v. Metropolitan Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 2019 IL 124283 , ¶ 23. ¶ 61 As noted above, the Tort Immunity Act states that a local public entity has a duty to “maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used * * *.” 745 ILCS 10 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Strauss v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2025The burden is on the public entity to prove its immunity under the Act, which “must be strictly construed against the public entity seeking immunity.” Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 210291, ¶ 30 . ¶ 22 For immunity to attach under section 2-201, a public entity must prove that its employee held either a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion, and that “the act or omission giving rise to the injury *** result[s] from both a determination of policy and an exercise of discretion.” Strauss v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL 127149, ¶ 60 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025The burden is on the public entity to prove its immunity under the Act, which “must be strictly construed against the public entity seeking immunity.” Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 210291, ¶ 30 . ¶ 22 For immunity to attach under section 2-201, a public entity must prove that its employee held either a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion, and that “the act or omission giving rise to the injury *** result[s] from both a determination of policy and an exercise of discretion.” Strauss v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL 127149, ¶ 60 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie
green
2 sentences2025The burden is on the public entity or employee to prove its immunity under the Act, which “must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Id. ¶ 31 Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act immunizes a local public entity or public employee for negligent supervision of, or negligent failure to supervise, an activity on public property. 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2016). ¶ 32 Section 3-108 states: - 10 - “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property 2025The burden is on the public entity or employee to prove its immunity under the Act, which “must be construed strictly against the public entity seeking immunity.” Id. ¶ 31 Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act immunizes a local public entity or public employee for negligent supervision of, or negligent failure to supervise, an activity on public property. 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2016). ¶ 32 Section 3-108 states: - 10 - “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.