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.
14 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.green2 sentences1986To prevail on his claim for retaliatory discharge, plaintiff must show termination of employment for a reason that violates “ ‘clearly mandated public policy.’ ” (Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 65, 67 , 485 N.E.2d 359, 360 .) Plaintiff now admits that he has no evidence of criminal law violations, so this case does not fall under the Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , “citizen crime-fighter” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. 1986To prevail on his claim for retaliatory discharge, plaintiff must show termination of employment for a reason that violates “ ‘clearly mandated public policy.’ ” (Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 65, 67 , 485 N.E.2d 359, 360 .) Plaintiff now admits that he has no evidence of criminal law violations, so this case does not fall under the Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , “citizen crime-fighter” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. | 2 | 3 |
Sullivan v. Baptist Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Haw. at 173 , 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass, at 68-69, 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . 2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Hawai`i at 173, 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass. at 68-69 , 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . | 2 | 2 |
Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Centergreen2 sentences1999Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482, 489 (1987). 1999Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center , 115 Ill. 2d 482, 489 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Carter Coal Co. v. Human Rights Commissiongreen2 sentences1997See Carter Coal Co. , 261 Ill. 1997See Carter Coal Co., 261 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherman v. Kraft General Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Sherman v. Kraft General Foods, Inc., 272 Ill. 2008Sherman v. Kraft General Foods, Inc., 272 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Hawai'i, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Haw. at 173 , 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass, at 68-69, 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . 2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Hawai`i at 173, 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass. at 68-69 , 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Hawai`i at 173, 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass. at 68-69 , 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . 2007See, e.g., Sullivan, 995 S.W.2d at 574 ; Gonsalves, 100 Hawai`i at 173, 58 P.3d at 1219 ; White, 442 Mass. at 68-69 , 809 N.E.2d at 1037-38 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co.
green
2 sentences1995(Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc. (1994), 164 Ill. 2d 29, 32 , 645 N.E.2d 877, 879 ; Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 142, 159 , 601 N.E.2d 720, 728 .) The Supreme Court of Illinois created a limited exception to this general rule by recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge for employees discharged for exercising their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (see Ill. 1995(Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc. (1994), 164 Ill. 2d 29, 32 , 645 N.E.2d 877, 879 ; Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 142, 159 , 601 N.E.2d 720, 728 .) The Supreme Court of Illinois created a limited exception to this general rule by recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge for employees discharged for exercising their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (see Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995(Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc. (1994), 164 Ill. 2d 29, 32 , 645 N.E.2d 877, 879 ; Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 142, 159 , 601 N.E.2d 720, 728 .) The Supreme Court of Illinois created a limited exception to this general rule by recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge for employees discharged for exercising their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (see Ill. 1995(Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc. (1994), 164 Ill. 2d 29, 32 , 645 N.E.2d 877, 879 ; Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. (1992), 151 Ill. 2d 142, 159 , 601 N.E.2d 720, 728 .) The Supreme Court of Illinois created a limited exception to this general rule by recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge for employees discharged for exercising their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (see Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Buechele v. St. Mary's Hospital Decatur
green
1 sentence1994App. 3d 637, 643 , 509 N.E.2d 744 . •3 Given the limited scope of the tort of retaliatory discharge, we conclude, as have cases in other jurisdictions construing similar language, that section 12 does not create a clear and unambiguous public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989Beginning with Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172 , 384 N.E.2d 353 , Illinois recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. 1989Beginning with Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172 , 384 N.E.2d 353 , Illinois recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986To prevail on his claim for retaliatory discharge, plaintiff must show termination of employment for a reason that violates “ ‘clearly mandated public policy.’ ” (Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 65, 67 , 485 N.E.2d 359, 360 .) Plaintiff now admits that he has no evidence of criminal law violations, so this case does not fall under the Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , “citizen crime-fighter” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. 1986To prevail on his claim for retaliatory discharge, plaintiff must show termination of employment for a reason that violates “ ‘clearly mandated public policy.’ ” (Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 65, 67 , 485 N.E.2d 359, 360 .) Plaintiff now admits that he has no evidence of criminal law violations, so this case does not fall under the Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124 , 421 N.E.2d 876 , “citizen crime-fighter” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.