Illinois rule in Missouri

2025“In amateur contact sports . . . [o]rdinary negligence principles are inapplicable in such cases because ‘conduct which might be “unreasonable” in everyday society is not actionable because it occurs on the athletic field.’” Elias v. Davis, 535 S.W.3d 737 , 744–45 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting McKichan, 967 S.W.2d at 211–12)).

2012The Illinois defendants settled two causes of action—one for the underlying workplace injury and one for the ensuing death. [12] Id. at 180-81 .

2012The Illinois defendants settled two causes of action — one for the underlying workplace injury and one for the ensuing death. 12 Id. at 180-81 .

1984In M & D Enterprises, Inc. v. Fournie, supra, the Southern District held that where a Missouri corporation sought out a non-resident defendant for the sale of some building materials, the placing of a couple of telephone orders from Illinois to Missouri and agreeing to send payments for the materials purchased to the seller in Missouri were not sufficient minimum contacts for the Missouri court to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the Illinois defendant.

1973In James v. Twomey, 466 F.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1972), an Illinois defendant alleged his constitutional rights had been violated where a guilty verdict was returned by a jury and punishment was assessed by the Judge.

1961Nor is there involved in this case any challenge to the Illinois rule, which follows Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 222 , 26 L.Ed. 337 , that title to all the property of Chicago Lloyds, wherever located, vested in the liquidator.

1961Nor is there involved in this case any challenge to the Illinois rule, which follows Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 222 , 26 L.Ed. 337 , that title to all the property of Chicago Lloyds, wherever located, vested in the liquidator.

1961In Haberly v. Reardon Co., Mo., 319 S.W.2d 859, 864 , a sub-missible case on causation was held to exist on facts probably less strong for plaintiff than ours.

1961In Haberly v. Reardon Co., Mo., 319 S.W.2d 859, 864 , a sub-missible case on causation was held to exist on facts probably less strong for plaintiff than ours.

1957It discovered that on December 13, 1954, Division One of this Court, after a somewhat extended study of whether the Illinois requirement was substantive or procedural, had held that certain former decisions of this court, beginning with the case of Menard v. Goltra, 328 Mo. 368 , 40 S.W.2d 1053 , were erroneous in holding that the Illinois requirement was procedural rather than substantive, and that said cases should be and were overruled.

1957It discovered that on December 13, 1954, Division One of this Court, after a somewhat extended study of whether the Illinois requirement was substantive or procedural, had held that certain former decisions of this court, beginning with the case of Menard v. Goltra, 328 Mo. 368 , 40 S.W.2d 1053 , were erroneous in holding that the Illinois requirement was procedural rather than substantive, and that said cases should be and were overruled.

1957O’Leary v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, (en Banc), Mo.Sup., 299 S.W.2d 873 ; Gerhard, Adm’r v. Terminal Railroad Association of St.

1957In Clark v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 340 Ill.App. 260 , loc. cit. 266, *48 91 N.E.2d 452 , loc. cit. 455, the court said: “Having determined that plaintiff, Viola Clark, could not recover, it follows that the husband could not recover for alleged expenditures by him, and the court correctly denied his motion for new trial and entered judgment on the verdict.” The Illinois requirement that in a husband’s suit for loss of services the plaintiff must allege, prove and submit the elemental fact that his wife was in the exercise.of due care for her own safety at the time of the accident is substan

1957In Clark v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 340 Ill.App. 260 , loc. cit. 266, *48 91 N.E.2d 452 , loc. cit. 455, the court said: “Having determined that plaintiff, Viola Clark, could not recover, it follows that the husband could not recover for alleged expenditures by him, and the court correctly denied his motion for new trial and entered judgment on the verdict.” The Illinois requirement that in a husband’s suit for loss of services the plaintiff must allege, prove and submit the elemental fact that his wife was in the exercise.of due care for her own safety at the time of the accident is substan

1954Louis County, 340 Mo. 986 , 104 S.W. 2d 371, 378 , we quoted with approval from Jones v. Erie R.

1954Louis County, 340 Mo. 986 , 104 S.W. 2d 371, 378 , we quoted with approval from Jones v. Erie R.

1953However, our Supreme Court in Hopkins v. Kurn, 351 Mo. *226 41, 171 S.W.2d 625, 626 , 149 A.L.R. 762 , stated that "the court at the forum determines according to its own Conflict of Laws rule whether a given question is one of substance or procedure", and it appears that the court has twice decided that the burden of proof is a procedural matter.

1953However, our Supreme Court in Hopkins v. Kurn, 351 Mo. *226 41, 171 S.W.2d 625, 626 , 149 A.L.R. 762 , stated that "the court at the forum determines according to its own Conflict of Laws rule whether a given question is one of substance or procedure", and it appears that the court has twice decided that the burden of proof is a procedural matter.

1953Both relators and respondents cite the case of Keegan v. Board of Trustees, 412 Ill. 430 , 107 N.E. (2d) 702, 705, where the applicable Illinois rule is stated to be "that statutory pensions, retirement allowances or benefits for employees requiring compulsory participation confer no vested rights upon the participants.

1953Both relators and respondents cite the case of Keegan v. Board of Trustees, 412 Ill. 430 , 107 N.E. (2d) 702, 705, where the applicable Illinois rule is stated to be "that statutory pensions, retirement allowances or benefits for employees requiring compulsory participation confer no vested rights upon the participants.

1950Co. of America v. Moore, supra, the Freund and Williams cases were reconciled and the view was expressed that the Illinois rule was not one of strict compliance.

1950Co. of America v. Moore, supra, the Freund and Williams cases were reconciled and the view was expressed that the Illinois rule was not one of strict compliance.

1909In the very recent case of People v. Board of Education, 234 Ill. l. c. 425, the doctrine of the Potts case is thus stated: “In the case of Potts v. Breen, 167 Ill. 67 , it was held that the exclusion of a child from a public school because of a refusal to be vaccinated can only be justified where such course is necessary, or reasonably appears to be necessary, in ease of an existing or threatened epidemic of smallpox and to prevent the spread of the disease.

1909In the very recent case of People v. Board of Education, 234 Ill. l. c. 425, the doctrine of the Potts case is thus stated: “In the case of Potts v. Breen, 167 Ill. 67 , it was held that the exclusion of a child from a public school because of a refusal to be vaccinated can only be justified where such course is necessary, or reasonably appears to be necessary, in ease of an existing or threatened epidemic of smallpox and to prevent the spread of the disease.

1905Co. v. Beaver, 192 Ill. 333 , 61 N. E. 335 , as follows: “Appellant cannot excuse a willful failure on its part to furnish suitable props and cap-pieces to the deceased, upon his request, to make his room safe, as required by the statute, by showing [this being the peculiar Illinois doctrine as to contributory negligence] that Beaver was guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury.....

1905Co. v. Beaver, 192 Ill. 333 , 61 N. E. 335 , as follows: “Appellant cannot excuse a willful failure on its part to furnish suitable props and cap-pieces to the deceased, upon his request, to make his room safe, as required by the statute, by showing [this being the peculiar Illinois doctrine as to contributory negligence] that Beaver was guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury.....