14 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Popko v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences2021Popko v. Continental Casualty Co., 355 Ill. 2020Popko v. Continental Casualty Co., 355 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United Statesgreen2 sentences2007Thus, these courts have held that, “in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.” Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal. App. 3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal. Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . 2007Thus, these courts have held that, "in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled." Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal.App.3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal.Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . | 2 | 2 |
McKinney v. County of Santa Claragreen2 sentences2007Thus, these courts have held that, "in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled." Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal.App.3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal.Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . 2007Thus, these courts have held that, "in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled." Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal.App.3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal.Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . | 2 | 2 |
Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, RBG, LPgreen2 sentences2025Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, RBG, LP, 369 Ill. 2025Id. at 325 . ¶ 41 The Samlers assert that if, as Rosenbaum contends, the Wiczer letter effectively reproduces the Goldberg letter, then under the single publication rule, both letters are time-barred. ¶ 42 Rosenbaum argues his claims are not time-barred under the continuing tort doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Shively v. Bozanichgreen1 sentence2021App. 3d at 326 (finding that the photo was “delivered to a mass sector of the public”); see, e.g., Shively, 80 P.3d at 689 (holding that the single publication rule applied to book that had been “generally distributed to the public”); Long v. Walt Disney Co., 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 836, 842 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining that, “like a publication in a nationally distributed book, newspaper, or magazine, the broadcasts on national television over a period of many months meant that plaintiffs had access to them, if only as members of the general public”); see also Long, 10 - 13 - Cal. Rptr. 3d at 841 (“T | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Walt Disney Co.green1 sentence2021App. 3d at 326 (finding that the photo was “delivered to a mass sector of the public”); see, e.g., Shively, 80 P.3d at 689 (holding that the single publication rule applied to book that had been “generally distributed to the public”); Long v. Walt Disney Co., 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 836, 842 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining that, “like a publication in a nationally distributed book, newspaper, or magazine, the broadcasts on national television over a period of many months meant that plaintiffs had access to them, if only as members of the general public”); see also Long, 10 - 13 - Cal. Rptr. 3d at 841 (“T | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Foxworthy
green
2 sentences1994In Andrews, a group of taxpayers filed a petition for a refund of part of their 1972 real estate taxes, alleging that part of the tax was invalid because the county had failed to publish increases by July 10, 1972, the date upon which the statute stated the publication "shall be made.” (Andrews, 71 Ill. 2d at 16-17 .) Our supreme court, citing People v. Jennings (1954), 3 Ill. 2d 125, 128 , held that the purpose of the publication requirement was not merely for the guidance of public officers, nor was it solely for the provision of notice of the assessment to taxpayers. 1981And, in a case which involved another section of the Revenue Act, the supreme court held that a publication requirement designed for the benefit and protection of citizens was a mandatory provision. ( Andrews v. Foxworthy (1978), 71 Ill.2d 13 , 373 N.E.2d 1332 .) As a mandatory statute, strict compliance was required. | 5 | 1981–2003 |
Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co.
green
2 sentences2007Thus, these courts have held that, “in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.” Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal. App. 3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal. Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . 2007Thus, these courts have held that, "in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled." Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888 ; see also McKinney, 110 Cal.App.3d at 797-98 , 168 Cal.Rptr. at 94 ; Churchey, 759 P.2d at 1345 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Taylor v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2025Under that doctrine, when a tort “involves continuous or repeated injurious behavior, *** the limitations period is held in abeyance and the plaintiff’s cause of action does not accrue until the date the final injury occurs or the tortuous acts cease.” Taylor v. Board of Education of Chicago, 2014 IL App (1st) 123744, ¶ 46 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ciolino v. Simon
green
2 sentences2024“The single-publication rule *** applies where defamatory material is mass-published to the public in a medium where the delayed receipt of the defamatory material is incidental to the medium’s mode of distribution.” Ciolino v. Simon, 2021 IL 126024, ¶ 38 , 192 N.E.3d 579, 587 . ¶ 67 On appeal, Süd initially contends the trial court erred because the single publication rule “has no bearing” on its slander of title claims. 2024“The single-publication rule *** applies where defamatory material is mass-published to the public in a medium where the delayed receipt of the defamatory material is incidental to the medium’s mode of distribution.” Ciolino v. Simon, 2021 IL 126024, ¶ 38 , 192 N.E.3d 579, 587 . ¶ 67 On appeal, Süd initially contends the trial court erred because the single publication rule “has no bearing” on its slander of title claims. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Jennings
green
1 sentence1994In Andrews, a group of taxpayers filed a petition for a refund of part of their 1972 real estate taxes, alleging that part of the tax was invalid because the county had failed to publish increases by July 10, 1972, the date upon which the statute stated the publication "shall be made.” (Andrews, 71 Ill. 2d at 16-17 .) Our supreme court, citing People v. Jennings (1954), 3 Ill. 2d 125, 128 , held that the purpose of the publication requirement was not merely for the guidance of public officers, nor was it solely for the provision of notice of the assessment to taxpayers. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
PEOPLE EX REL. CHICAGO HEIGHTS v. Richton
green
1 sentence1979City of Chicago Heights v. Richton (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 267 , and Perkins v. Board of County Commissioners (1916), 271 Ill. 449 .) In Garcia, we considered the publication requirement of section 104 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Perkins v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence1979City of Chicago Heights v. Richton (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 267 , and Perkins v. Board of County Commissioners (1916), 271 Ill. 449 .) In Garcia, we considered the publication requirement of section 104 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Ill. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People Ex Rel. Republican-Reporter Corp. v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1978In People v. Holmes (1968), 98 Ill. 1978In People v. Holmes (1968), 98 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.