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.
12 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Standard Insurance v. Clevelandgreen2 sentences2008Following American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Cleveland, 124 Wis. 2d 258, 267 , 369 N.W.2d 168, 173 (App. 1985), I would find that the claim raised is one of contract and that the most significant contacts test must be used to determine whether the substantive law of Minnesota (forbids subrogation in this context) or Illinois (allows subrogation in this context) should apply. 2008Following American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Cleveland, 124 Wis. 2d 258, 267 , 369 N.W.2d 168, 173 (App. 1985), I would find that the claim raised is one of contract and that the most significant contacts test must be used to determine whether the substantive law of Minnesota (forbids subrogation in this context) or Illinois (allows subrogation in this context) should apply. | 2 | 2 |
United Farm Family Mutual Insurance v. Fryegreen1 sentence2022United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Frye, 381 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Perkins v. City Of Chicago Heightsgreen1 sentence2001See Continental Training Services, Inc. v. Cavazos , 893 F.2d 877 , 881 n.5 (7 th Cir. 1990); Perkins v. City of Chicago Heights , 47 F.3d 212, 218 (7 th Cir. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Continental Training Services, Inc. D/B/A Superior Training Services v. Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Educationgreen1 sentence2001See Continental Training Services, Inc. v. Cavazos , 893 F.2d 877 , 881 n.5 (7 th Cir. 1990); Perkins v. City of Chicago Heights , 47 F.3d 212, 218 (7 th Cir. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ingersoll v. Klein
green
2 sentences1989Most importantly, Michigan Mutual argues that here, Michigan law clearly applies to the case under the most significant contacts rule (see Ingersoll v. Klein (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 42 , 262 N.E.2d 593 ), and the resolution of the case will necessarily involve an examination of Michigan law to determine the potential value and the probability of the success of plaintiff’s claim in the Bovair case to determine whether the settlement of the case by Michigan Mutual was reasonable. 1989Most importantly, Michigan Mutual argues that here, Michigan law clearly applies to the case under the most significant contacts rule (see Ingersoll v. Klein (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 42 , 262 N.E.2d 593 ), and the resolution of the case will necessarily involve an examination of Michigan law to determine the potential value and the probability of the success of plaintiff’s claim in the Bovair case to determine whether the settlement of the case by Michigan Mutual was reasonable. | 4 | 1973–1989 |
Safeco Insurance v. Jelen
green
1 sentence2022Id. ¶ 13 If the claim raised is a contract, the most significant contacts test is used. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 321 Ill. 2008See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §188 (1971); Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 321 Ill. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United Airlines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence2005In reiterating the contract situs test as the sole test for determining compensability, the court in United Airlines (Walker) specifically rejected a significant contacts test for jurisdiction: “Respondent also urges that we apply a theory of jurisdiction suggested by Professor Larson that jurisdiction over compensation issues should be present only where the employment relationship is centered, and that the situs of that relationship should be governed by rules similar to those governing questions concerning an individual’s domicile. [Citations.] An exclusive application of that theory, howev | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Jakubik v. Jakubik
green
1 sentence1992(Jakubik v. Jakubik (1991), 208 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Scott/Hubbard Co., Inc. v. Sika Chemical Corp.
green
1 sentence1992(Scott/Hubbard, 694 F. Supp. at 1313 .) We recognize that we recently noted that the most significant contacts rule applies in contract actions where the parties have neglected to make an effective choice of law. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp.
green
1 sentence1991(See Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp. (1985), 134 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Mech v. Pullman-Standard
green
1 sentence1989(See Mech v. Pullman Standard (1985), 136 Ill. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.