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 2 courts 1995–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Employers Insurance v. Ehlco Liquidating Trustgreen2 sentences2007Ehlco, 186 Ill. 2d at 150-51 . 2007Ehlco 186 Ill. 2d at 150-51 . | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Victor Maneikis v. St. Paul Insurance Company of Illinois
green
2 sentences2000Paul Insurance Co., 655 F.2d 818 , which had previously held that the late-notice exception did not exist. 2000Paul Insurance Co., 655 F.2d 818 , that had previously held that the late-notice exception did not exist. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State Security Insurance v. Burgos
green
2 sentences1999In reaching our holding, we reject Wausau’s contention that we must adopt the late-notice exception to estoppel to be consistent with our decision in State Security Insurance Co. v. Burgos, 145 Ill. 2d 423 (1991). 1999In reaching our holding, we reject Wausau’s contention that we must adopt the late-notice exception to estoppel to be consistent with our decision in State Security Insurance Co. v. Burgos , 145 Ill. 2d 423 (1991). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Central Mutual Insurance v. Kammerling
green
2 sentences1997On appeal, the Kammerling court held that the insurer was estopped from asserting a late notice defense due to "[t]he peculiar facts of this case” (Kammerling, 212 Ill. 1997On appeal, the Kammerling court held that the insurer was estopped from asserting a late notice defense due to "[t]he peculiar facts of this case" ( Kammerling , 212 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Unigard SEC v. N. Riv Ins
green
1 sentence2026Unigard Security Insurance Co., Inc. 79 N.Y.2d at 584 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
neutral
1 sentence2024Therefore, I respectfully dissent. - 14 - Tony’s Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2024 IL App (1st) 231712 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 22-CH-9420; the Hon. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Montgomery Ward and Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2012Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 324 Ill. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Gorsuch
green
1 sentence2012But in Gorsuch, the statute was triggered by the insurer’s failure to notify the claimants in the underlying tort suit within 45 days and the court repeated the well- established principle that the statute’s purpose is “to allow the claimant, an outsider to the insurance contract, to take any necessary steps to protect her rights.” Gorsuch, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 756 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Seneca Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1995This court rejected the application of estoppel because the insurer "actively sought, through a motion for summary judgment, an adjudication of its rights and duties.” ( 254 Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.