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 1977–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Campgreen2 sentences1984Jur. 2d Statutes sec. 433 (1974); see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp (1970), 397 U.S. 150, 153-54 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 184, 188 , 90 S. Ct. 827 ; Boyer v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. 1984Jur. 2d Statutes sec. 433 (1974); see Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp (1970), 397 U.S. 150, 153-54 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 184, 188 , 90 S. Ct. 827 ; Boyer v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. | 2 | 2 |
Cardinal Glass Co. v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1998With respect to the issue of whether a person has standing to bring an action for the violation of a statute, it has been held as follows: “ ‘Where the suit alleges injury due to violation of a statue, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be one of the class designed to be protected by the statute, or for whose benefit the statute was enacted, and to whom a duty of compliance is owed. [Citations.] The object of the statute, the nature of the duty imposed by it, and the benefits resulting from its performance dictate what persons are entitled to sue thereunder.’ ” Cardinal Glass 1998App. 3d 442, 445 , 447 N.E.2d 546, 548 (1983), quoting Lynch v. Devine, 45 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lynch v. Devine
green
2 sentences2019The Lynch test provides that, "where the suit alleges injury due to violation of a statute, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be a member of the class designed to be protected by the statute." Id. (citing Lynch , 45 Ill. 1989App. 3d 743, 748 , 359 N.E.2d 1137 , this court enunciated the applicable rule of standing where a violation of statute is alleged: “Where the suit alleges injury due to violation of a statute, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be one of the class designed to be protected by the statute, or for whose benefit the statute was enacted, and to whom a duty of compliance is owed. [Citations.] The object of the statute, the nature of the duty imposed by it, and the benefits resulting from its performance dictate what persons are entitled to sue thereunder.” Plaintiffs contend that | 12 | 1982–2019 |
Underground Contractors Ass'n v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences1992(Underground Contractors Association v. City of Chicago (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 371 , 362 N.E.2d 298 .) In cases where it is alleged that injury is due to the violation of a statute, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be a member of the class designed to be protected by the statute or one for whose benefit the statute was enacted and to whom a duty of compliance is owed. 1992(Underground Contractors Association v. City of Chicago (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 371 , 362 N.E.2d 298 .) In cases where it is alleged that injury is due to the violation of a statute, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be a member of the class designed to be protected by the statute or one for whose benefit the statute was enacted and to whom a duty of compliance is owed. | 3 | 1982–1992 |
COTTAGE-63RD ST. CURRENCY EXCH. v. Callahan
green
2 sentences1992(Cottage-63rd Street Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Callahan (1982), 104 Ill. 1985App. 3d 743, 748 , where an action is brought alleging a violation of a statute, “the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be one of the class designed to be protected by the statute, or for whose benefit the statute was enacted, and to whom a duty of compliance is owed.” (See also Cottage-63rd Street Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Callahan (1982), 104 Ill. | 2 | 1985–1992 |
U.S. Bank Trust National Assoc. v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2020U.S. Bank Trust National Association for Queen’s Park Oval Asset Holding Trust v. Lopez, 2018 IL App (2d) 160967, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Glisson v. City of Marion
green
1 sentence2019The Lynch test provides that, "where the suit alleges injury due to violation of a statute, the doctrine of standing requires that the plaintiff be a member of the class designed to be protected by the statute." Id. (citing Lynch , 45 Ill. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Beaver Glass & Mirror Co. v. Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205
green
1 sentence1985App. 3d 586, 589 .) Whether Zannini has standing under the School Code to maintain this action depends in large measure on the interpretation to be given this court’s decision in Beaver Glass & Mirror Co. v. Board of Education (1978), 59 Ill. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.