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.
17 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2022See id. (a court may consider the whether the imposition of a duty would be “overwhelmingly detrimental to the efficient performance of the transit system” (internal quotation marks omitted)). ¶ 39 In sum, the Pryors failed to sufficiently plead that the CTA owed Clark a duty of care sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. 2 See id. at 233 (“[t]he burden to prove all the elements of a negligence claim remains on the plaintiff throughout the proceedings”). ¶ 40 The Pryors also allege that the willful and wanton conduct counts survive dismissal because “there is ample evidence for a jury to 2022See id. (a court may consider the whether the imposition of a duty would be “overwhelmingly detrimental to the efficient performance of the transit system” (internal quotation marks omitted)). ¶ 39 In sum, the Pryors failed to sufficiently plead that the CTA owed Clark a duty of care sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. 2 See id. at 233 (“[t]he burden to prove all the elements of a negligence claim remains on the plaintiff throughout the proceedings”). ¶ 40 The Pryors also allege that the willful and wanton conduct counts survive dismissal because “there is ample evidence for a jury to | 2 | 2 |
Novander v. City of Morrisgreen2 sentences2020Novander v. City of Morris, 181 Ill. App. 3d 1076, 1078 (1989). 2019Novander v. City of Morris, 181 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
First Springfield Bank & Trust v. Galmangreen2 sentences2019First Springfield Bank & Trust v. Galman, 188 Ill. 2d 252, 256 (1999). 2018First Springfield Bank & Trust v. Galman , 188 Ill. 2d 252 , 256, 242 Ill.Dec. 113 , 720 N.E.2d 1068 (1999). | 1 | 2 |
Martinelli v. The City of Chicagogreen1 sentence2025See Martinelli v. City of Chicago, 2013 IL App (1st) 113040, ¶ 18 (in an appeal following a trial, the court reviewed de novo an argument that section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act immunized the defendant from the plaintiff’s claim). ¶ 19 A. The Scope of Immunity Under Section 3-104 ¶ 20 Section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act immunizes local public entities and their employees “for an injury caused by the failure to initially provide regulatory traffic control devices, -7- stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, distinctive roadway markings or any other traffic regulati | 1 | 1 |
Winnetka Bank v. Mandasgreen1 sentence2023Winnetka Bank v. Mandas, 202 Ill. App. 3d 373, 387-88 (1990). ¶ 10 The elements of a negligence claim are that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that 4 the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. | 1 | 1 |
Geers v. Brichtagreen1 sentence2023“Liability in a personal injury action cannot be based on speculation or conjecture and the burden is on the plaintiff to produce evidence, either direct or circumstantial to show not only that injuries exist, but also that they were the result of the occurrence at issue.” Geers v. Brichta, 248 Ill. App. 3d 398, 406 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Adkins v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Centergreen1 sentence2022To state a cause of action for willful and wanton conduct, “a plaintiff must allege either a deliberate intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the plaintiff.” Adkins v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center, 129 Ill. 2d 497, 518 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Faustgreen1 sentence2022Id.; see also Spidle v. Steward, 79 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (1980) (Res ipsa loquitur “will not apply unless a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.”); Carroll v. Faust, 311 Ill. App. 3d 679, 687 (2000) (“Initially, a trial court must decide whether, as a matter of law, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable, and it will not apply unless a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff.”). ¶ 67 Here, plaintiff failed to plead that defendants owed her a duty—an essential element of any negligence claim, regardless of the manner of evidentiary proof. | 1 | 1 |
Spidle v. Stewardgreen1 sentence2022Id.; see also Spidle v. Steward, 79 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (1980) (Res ipsa loquitur “will not apply unless a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.”); Carroll v. Faust, 311 Ill. App. 3d 679, 687 (2000) (“Initially, a trial court must decide whether, as a matter of law, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable, and it will not apply unless a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff.”). ¶ 67 Here, plaintiff failed to plead that defendants owed her a duty—an essential element of any negligence claim, regardless of the manner of evidentiary proof. | 1 | 1 |
Guvenoz v. Target Corp.green1 sentence2021See Guvenoz v. Target Corp., 2015 IL App (1st) 133940, ¶ 89 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramara Inc v. Westfield Insurance Co
green
2 sentences2017Ramara, 814 F. 3d at 677-678 . ¶ 39 In CSR Roofing, we found that Pekin had a duty to defend the additional insured in that case “[a]lthough the elements of a negligence claim were not specifically alleged against [the named insured]” because “the amended complaint suggest[ed] that [the named insured’s] acts or omissions were an underlying cause of [the underlying plaintiff’s] injuries.” Id. 2017Ramara, 814 F. 3d at 677-678 . ¶ 39 In CSR Roofing, we found that Pekin had a duty to defend the additional insured in that case “[a]lthough the elements of a negligence claim were not specifically alleged against [the named insured]” because “the amended complaint suggest[ed] that [the named insured’s] acts or omissions were an underlying cause of [the underlying plaintiff’s] injuries.” Id. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors
green
2 sentences2022Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 19 . 2021Jane Doe- 3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 19 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Pekin Insurance Company v. CSR Roofing Contractors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Ramara, 814 F.3d at 677-78 . ¶ 39 In CSR Roofing, we found that Pekin had a duty to defend the additional insured in that case “[a]lthough the elements of a negligence claim were not specifically alleged against [the named insured]” because “the amended complaint suggest[ed] that [the named insured’s] acts or omissions were an underlying cause of [the underlying plaintiff’s] injuries.” CSR Roofing, 2015 IL App (1st) 142473, ¶ 50 . 2017Ramara, 814 F.3d at 677-78 . ¶ 39 In CSR Roofing, we found that Pekin had a duty to defend the additional insured in that case “[a]lthough the elements of a negligence claim were not specifically alleged against [the named insured]” because “the amended complaint suggest[ed] that [the named insured’s] acts or omissions were an underlying cause of [the underlying plaintiff’s] injuries.” CSR Roofing, 2015 IL App (1st) 142473, ¶ 50 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Hornacek v. 5th Ave. Property Management
green
1 sentence2023Hornacek v. 5th Avenue Property Management, 2011 IL App (1st) 103502, ¶ 27 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Heastie v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2022We agree. - 20 - ¶ 66 Importantly, “res ipsa loquitur is not a claim in and of itself; rather, it is an evidentiary doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence under a unique set of proofs.” Id. ¶ 23 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jackson v. TLC Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Id. ¶ 26 The elements of a negligence claim are: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Monson v. City of Danville
green
1 sentence2019“It is the plaintiff’s burden to allege and prove all of the elements of a negligence claim, including a duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486, ¶ 23 . ¶ 65 Proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact to be presented to the jury; it can only be decided as a matter of law where reasonable men cannot draw divergent inferences from the undisputed facts. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Barr v. Frausto
green
1 sentence2019Essentially, “[t]he Act’s purpose is to protect local governments and their employees from liability arising out of the operation of government.” Barr v. Frausto, 2016 IL App (3d) 150014, ¶ 21 . ¶ 73 It is the plaintiff’s burden to allege and prove all of the elements of a negligence claim. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company v. Waukegan Steel Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Waukegan Steel Sales Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 120735, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.