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.
13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zeh v. Wheelergreen1 sentence2023For instance, in Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266, 268 (1986), the plaintiff brought a claim of negligence against a landlord for failing to maintain a common stairway. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tindell v. Mc-Curley
green
2 sentences2015Tindell, 272 Ill. 2015Tindell, 272 Ill. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Bearden v. Hamby
green
2 sentences1999Bearden, 240 Ill. 1999Bearden , 240 Ill. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Gary C. Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company
green
2 sentences1999Co., 773 F.2d 807 (7th Cir.1985), the plaintiff brought a claim against his railroad employer under the FELA based on his mistreatment at the hands of several supervisors. 1999Co., 773 F.2d 807 (7th Cir. 1985), the plaintiff brought a claim against his railroad employer under the FELA based on his mistreatment at the hands of several supervisors. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Paul Adkins v. Seaboard System Railroad
green
2 sentences1999In Adkins v. Seaboard System R.R., 821 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1987), the plaintiff brought a claim under the FELA against his former railroad employer alleging that its agents deliberately conspired to have the plaintiff terminated, causing him to suffer emotional distress. 1999In Adkins v. Seaboard System R.R., 821 F.2d 340 (6th Cir. 1987), the plaintiff brought a claim under the FELA against his former railroad employer alleging that its agents deliberately conspired to have the plaintiff terminated, causing him to suffer emotional distress. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Janetis v. Christensen
green
2 sentences1996Relying on Janetis v. Christensen, 200 Ill. 1996Relying on Janetis v. Christensen, 200 Ill.App.3d 581 , 146 Ill. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Clark v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rich v. Baldwin
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 713 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gill v. Foster
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 23 The plaintiff brought a claim against the hospital, alleging the hospital breached its “standard of care by discharging plaintiff from the hospital even though plaintiff complained of chest pain, failing to inform the treating physician that plaintiff was complaining of chest pain at the time of discharge, and failing to communicate plaintiff’s clinical findings to a nursing supervisor for appropriate care.” Id. 2024Id. ¶ 23 The plaintiff brought a claim against the hospital, alleging the hospital breached its “standard of care by discharging plaintiff from the hospital even though plaintiff complained of chest pain, failing to inform the treating physician that plaintiff was complaining of chest pain at the time of discharge, and failing to communicate plaintiff’s clinical findings to a nursing supervisor for appropriate care.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Essig v. Advocate Bromenn Medical Center
green
2 sentences2015Essig v. Advocate BroMenn Medical Center, 2015 IL App (4th) 140546, ¶ 39 , 33 N.E.3d 288 . ¶ 24 Interpretation of a Federal Statute ¶ 25 In the present case, the plaintiff brought his claim under FELA, which is a federal statute. 2015Essig v. Advocate BroMenn Medical Center, 2015 IL App (4th) 140546, ¶ 39 , 33 N.E.3d 288 . ¶ 24 Interpretation of a Federal Statute ¶ 25 In the present case, the plaintiff brought his claim under FELA, which is a federal statute. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.