18 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kapoor v. Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co.green2 sentences2021Once the threshold showing has been made that another action is pending between the same parties and for the same cause, the trial court should consider several factors in reaching its ruling: “comity; the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in the foreign jurisdiction; and the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment in the local forum.” Kellerman, 112 Ill. 2d at 447-48 (applying Kellerman factors to trial court’s decision to stay action); see also Kapoor v. Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., 298 Ill. 2012Kapoor, 298 Ill.App.3d at 790 , 232 Ill.Dec. 910 , 699 N.E.2d 1095 . ¶ 42 Considering the requirements to support a dismissal under section 2-619(a)(3), the four Kellerman factors, as well as the trial court's analysis of those factors, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the Illinois lawsuit pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3) of the Code. ¶ 43 We next turn to the Illinois plaintiffs' specific contention concerning the trial court's error in dismissing the Illinois lawsuit because they had never received service of process in the Canadian court, and, therefore, | 8 | 11 |
Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.green2 sentences2023The factors that a court should consider include “comity; the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in the foreign jurisdiction; and the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment in the local forum.” Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428, 447-48 (1986). ¶ 21 Control has not given this court sufficient background about the Missouri state court action to assess whether the Kellerman factors apply. 2023The factors that a court should consider include “comity; the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in the foreign jurisdiction; and the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment in the local forum.” Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428, 447-48 (1986). ¶ 21 Control has not given this court sufficient background about the Missouri state court action to assess whether the Kellerman factors apply. | 5 | 9 |
Schnitzer v. O'CONNORgreen2 sentences2013App. 3d -9- 785, 788-89 (1995) (not considering any of the Kellerman factors); Schnitzer v. O’Connor, 274 Ill. 2013App. 3d -9- 785, 788-89 (1995) (not considering any of the Kellerman factors); Schnitzer v. O’Connor, 274 Ill. | 3 | 4 |
Doutt v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2012App.3d at 788-89 , 213 Ill.Dec. 459 , 659 N.E.2d 89 (not considering any of the Kellerman factors); Schnitzer v. O'Connor, 274 Ill.App.3d 314, 318-22 , 210 Ill.Dec. 630 , 653 N.E.2d 825 (1995) (not considering any of the Kellerman factors). 2012App.3d at 788-89 , 213 Ill.Dec. 459 , 659 N.E.2d 89 (not considering any of the Kellerman factors); Schnitzer v. O'Connor, 274 Ill.App.3d 314, 318-22 , 210 Ill.Dec. 630 , 653 N.E.2d 825 (1995) (not considering any of the Kellerman factors). | 3 | 3 |
Southwest Financial Bank v. McGrathgreen2 sentences1998See Southwest , 200 Ill. 1998See Southwest, 200 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Performance Network Solutions v. Cyberklix USgreen2 sentences2024Performance Network Solutions, 2012 IL App (1st) 110137, ¶ 33 . 2 See Enadeghe v. Dahms, 2017 IL App (1st) 162170, ¶ 23 (We may decline to address any arguments that plaintiff makes that do not contain appropriate citation) (citing Ill. 2024App. 3d 780, 785-86 (1998); Performance Network Solutions, Inc. v. Cyberklix US, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 110137, ¶ 36 (holding that a court should not consider prejudice to the nonmovant as a separate factor but should instead consider the four Kellerman factors in weighing potential prejudice). | 1 | 3 |
Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. v. Nasologreen2 sentences2012Specifically, the Illinois plaintiffs argue that the written order from the Canadian court shows that the Canadian justice "believed [that] he had jurisdiction over the matter, but it does not reflect that the Canadian [justice] ever held that service has in fact been effected on the [Illinois plaintiffs]." ¶ 44 "The purpose of service of process is twofold." Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. v. Nasolo, 364 Ill.App.3d 26, 31 , 301 Ill.Dec. 467 , 847 N.E.2d 126 (2006) (citing Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Horton, 59 Ill.App.3d 923, 926 , 17 Ill.Dec. 700 , 376 N.E.2d 1029 (19 2012Specifically, the Illinois plaintiffs argue that the written order from the Canadian court shows that the Canadian justice "believed [that] he had jurisdiction over the matter, but it does not reflect that the Canadian [justice] ever held that service has in fact been effected on the [Illinois plaintiffs]." ¶ 44 "The purpose of service of process is twofold." Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. v. Nasolo, 364 Ill.App.3d 26, 31 , 301 Ill.Dec. 467 , 847 N.E.2d 126 (2006) (citing Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Horton, 59 Ill.App.3d 923, 926 , 17 Ill.Dec. 700 , 376 N.E.2d 1029 (19 | 1 | 2 |
Grove v. Carle Foundation Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025Grove v. Carle Foundation Hospital, 364 Ill. 2025Grove v. Carle Foundation Hospital, 364 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Henderson-Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Nahamani Family Service Center, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Henderson-Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Nahamani Family Service Center, Inc., 323 Ill. 2025See Henderson-Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Nahamani Family Service Center, Inc., 323 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Enadeghe v. Dahmsgreen1 sentence2024Performance Network Solutions, 2012 IL App (1st) 110137, ¶ 33 . 2 See Enadeghe v. Dahms, 2017 IL App (1st) 162170, ¶ 23 (We may decline to address any arguments that plaintiff makes that do not contain appropriate citation) (citing 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 |
|---|---|---|
A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co.
green
2 sentences2005Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co. (1980), 84 Ill. 2d 245, 254 .)” Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428, 447-48 (1986). “[Subsequent cases have extended the Kellerman factors to section 2 — 619(a)(3) dismissals. 2005Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co. (1980), 84 Ill. 2d 245, 254 .)” Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428, 447-48 (1986). “[Subsequent cases have extended the Kellerman factors to section 2 — 619(a)(3) dismissals. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Midas International Corp. v. MESA, S.p.A
green
2 sentences2024“Comity refers to the practice of deferring to the laws and interests of a foreign jurisdiction out of respect, good will and cooperation.” Midas International Corp. v. Mesa, S.p.A., 2013 IL App (1st) 122048, ¶ 26 . 2024“Comity refers to the practice of deferring to the laws and interests of a foreign jurisdiction out of respect, good will and cooperation.” Midas International Corp. v. Mesa, S.p.A., 2013 IL App (1st) 122048, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Illgen
green
2 sentences2024App. 3d 82, 100 (2004) (“[O]ur finding in this case does not bar individual unit owners from obtaining relief in the event that the [Board] fails to take action against the third parties.”). ¶ 23 Considering the requirements for dismissal under section 2-619(a)(3), the Kellerman factors, and the trial court’s apt analysis, the court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3) was not “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 364 . ¶ 24 Because we find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under section 2-619(a)(3), 2024App. 3d 82, 100 (2004) (“[O]ur finding in this case does not bar individual unit owners from obtaining relief in the event that the [Board] fails to take action against the third parties.”). ¶ 23 Considering the requirements for dismissal under section 2-619(a)(3), the Kellerman factors, and the trial court’s apt analysis, the court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3) was not “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 364 . ¶ 24 Because we find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under section 2-619(a)(3), | 1 | 2024–2024 |
May v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021May, 304 Ill. 2021May, 304 Ill. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Schmidt v. Gaynor
green
2 sentences2021App. 3d 780, 789 (1998) (applying Kellerman factors to trial court’s decision to dismiss action). ¶ 15 “Section 2-619(a)(3) is an ‘inherently procedural’ device aimed at avoiding duplicative litigation [citation], and it should be construed liberally.” Schmidt v. Gaynor, 2019 IL App (2d) 180426, ¶ 9 . 2021App. 3d 780, 789 (1998) (applying Kellerman factors to trial court’s decision to dismiss action). ¶ 15 “Section 2-619(a)(3) is an ‘inherently procedural’ device aimed at avoiding duplicative litigation [citation], and it should be construed liberally.” Schmidt v. Gaynor, 2019 IL App (2d) 180426, ¶ 9 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jackson v. Callan Publishing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013These four factors are commonly known as the “Kellerman factors.” Combined Insurance Co. of America, 356 Ill. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Horton
green
2 sentences2012Specifically, the Illinois plaintiffs argue that the written order from the Canadian court shows that the Canadian justice "believed [that] he had jurisdiction over the matter, but it does not reflect that the Canadian [justice] ever held that service has in fact been effected on the [Illinois plaintiffs]." ¶ 44 "The purpose of service of process is twofold." Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. v. Nasolo, 364 Ill.App.3d 26, 31 , 301 Ill.Dec. 467 , 847 N.E.2d 126 (2006) (citing Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Horton, 59 Ill.App.3d 923, 926 , 17 Ill.Dec. 700 , 376 N.E.2d 1029 (19 2012Specifically, the Illinois plaintiffs argue that the written order from the Canadian court shows that the Canadian justice "believed [that] he had jurisdiction over the matter, but it does not reflect that the Canadian [justice] ever held that service has in fact been effected on the [Illinois plaintiffs]." ¶ 44 "The purpose of service of process is twofold." Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. v. Nasolo, 364 Ill.App.3d 26, 31 , 301 Ill.Dec. 467 , 847 N.E.2d 126 (2006) (citing Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Horton, 59 Ill.App.3d 923, 926 , 17 Ill.Dec. 700 , 376 N.E.2d 1029 (19 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
green
2 sentences2012These four factors are also known as the "Kellerman factors." Combined Insurance Co. of America, 356 Ill.App.3d at 754 , 292 Ill.Dec. 653 , 826 N.E.2d 1089 . 2012These four factors are also known as the "Kellerman factors." Combined Insurance Co. of America, 356 Ill.App.3d at 754 , 292 Ill.Dec. 653 , 826 N.E.2d 1089 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.