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.
15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nowak v. St. Rita High Schoolgreen2 sentences2017Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381, 393-94 (2001) (“The doctrine of res judicata need not be applied in a manner inconsistent with fundamental fairness.”). 2016Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381, 393-94 (2001) (“The doctrine of res judicata need not be applied in a manner inconsistent with fundamental fairness.”). | 5 | 7 |
The People v. Somervillegreen2 sentences2001People v. Somerville, 42 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1969); Airtite, 269 Ill. 2001People v. Somerville , 42 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1969); Airtite , 269 Ill. | 2 | 5 |
Thorleif Larsen & Son, Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1994App. 3d at 661-62 , 532 N.E.2d at 426-27 .) Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata need not be applied where fundamental fairness so requires. 1994(Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1) (1982); see Thorleif, 177 Ill.App.3d at 661-62 , 126 Ill.Dec. at 741-42 , 532 N.E.2d at 426-27 .) Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata need not be applied where fundamental fairness so requires. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck
green
2 sentences2008However, "the doctrine of res judicata need not be applied where fundamental fairness so requires." Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, 314 Ill. 2008However, “the doctrine of res judicata need not be applied where fundamental fairness so requires.” Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, 314 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Gauger v. Hendle
green
2 sentences2021“Collateral estoppel applies when: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the issue in the present suit; 15 (2) a final judgment was entered on the merits in the prior adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” Id. ¶ 58 The parties do not dispute that a final judgment was made, nor that all of the parties involved in this case were also privy to the federal case. 2021The doctrine of res judicata need not be applied in a manner inconsistent with fundamental fairness. [Citation.] The doctrine does not apply in this case.” Id. at 393-94. ¶ 56 Therefore, because the “claims” of malicious prosecution and abuse of process were not directly ruled on by the district court, res judicata does not apply. ¶ 57 “Collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion) is an equitable doctrine that, like the law of the case doctrine, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been decided in a prior proceeding.” Gauger v. Hendle, 2011 IL App (2d) 100316, ¶ 114 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.