12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parmar v. Madigangreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 48; see PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 250, 261 (2005) (when a State officer’s conduct violates the constitution, he may be “ ‘restrained by proper action instituted by a citizen’ ” (quoting Schwing v. Miles, 367 Ill. 436, 442 (1937))). ¶ 24 This exception to sovereign immunity is often referred to as the “officer suit exception.” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; see PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 (when a State officer undertakes an action without legal authority, the action strips the State officer of his official status, and his conduct is not that of the State, nor is 2025This exception to sovereign immunity has been called the ‘prospective injunctive relief’ exception, but it is most often referred to as the ‘officer suit exception.’ ” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 (Internal quotations and citations omitted.). ¶ 50 However, “not every legal wrong committed by an officer of the State will trigger [the officer suit] exception.” Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 47 . | 3 | 5 |
PHL, INC. v. Pullman Bank and Trust Co.green2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 48; see PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 250, 261 (2005) (when a State officer’s conduct violates the constitution, he may be “ ‘restrained by proper action instituted by a citizen’ ” (quoting Schwing v. Miles, 367 Ill. 436, 442 (1937))). ¶ 24 This exception to sovereign immunity is often referred to as the “officer suit exception.” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; see PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 (when a State officer undertakes an action without legal authority, the action strips the State officer of his official status, and his conduct is not that of the State, nor is 2025Id. ¶ 48; see PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 250, 261 (2005) (when a State officer’s conduct violates the constitution, he may be “ ‘restrained by proper action instituted by a citizen’ ” (quoting Schwing v. Miles, 367 Ill. 436, 442 (1937))). ¶ 24 This exception to sovereign immunity is often referred to as the “officer suit exception.” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; see PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 (when a State officer undertakes an action without legal authority, the action strips the State officer of his official status, and his conduct is not that of the State, nor is | 2 | 5 |
Jinkins v. Leegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 330 (sovereign immunity applies when, among other things, there are “no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 45 ; Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 309 . 2020See, e.g., Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 330 (sovereign immunity applies when, among other things, there -9- No. 1-19-0904 are “no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 45 ; Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 309 . | 2 | 2 |
Loman v. Freemangreen2 sentences2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. 2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Rockford Mem v. Dept. of Human Rightsgreen2 sentences2018This exception to sovereign immunity has been called the “prospective injunctive relief exception” (Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Department of Human Rights, 272 Ill. 2018This exception to sovereign immunity has been called the "prospective injunctive relief exception" ( Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Department of Human Rights , 272 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Schwing v. Milesgreen1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 48; see PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 250, 261 (2005) (when a State officer’s conduct violates the constitution, he may be “ ‘restrained by proper action instituted by a citizen’ ” (quoting Schwing v. Miles, 367 Ill. 436, 442 (1937))). ¶ 24 This exception to sovereign immunity is often referred to as the “officer suit exception.” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; see PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 (when a State officer undertakes an action without legal authority, the action strips the State officer of his official status, and his conduct is not that of the State, nor is | 1 | 1 |
C.J. v. Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2025The exception has also been called the “prospective injunctive relief exception.” C.J. v. Department of Human Services, 331 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Shempf v. Chavianogreen1 sentence2023Shempf, 2019 IL App (1st) 173146, ¶¶ 62-63 (quoting Department of Revenue, 67 Ill. 2d at 396 ). ¶ 31 We agree with the Grey court that the fees at issue here, where Mr. Lavery was required to initiate a court action in order to enjoin a state officer from obtaining records that were protected by statute, are part and parcel of the injunctive relief that is not barred by sovereign immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12green1 sentence1996Although wilful and wanton conduct was an exception to sovereign immunity under the common law (see McCormick, 95 Ill. at 266 ), the Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12, 102 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
green
2 sentences2025This exception to sovereign immunity has been called the ‘prospective injunctive relief’ exception, but it is most often referred to as the ‘officer suit exception.’ ” Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 (Internal quotations and citations omitted.). ¶ 50 However, “not every legal wrong committed by an officer of the State will trigger [the officer suit] exception.” Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 47 . 2020See, e.g., Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 330 (sovereign immunity applies when, among other things, there -9- No. 1-19-0904 are “no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 45 ; Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 309 . | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Healy v. Vaupel
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 330 (sovereign immunity applies when, among other things, there are “no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 45 ; Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 309 . 2020See, e.g., Jinkins, 209 Ill. 2d at 330 (sovereign immunity applies when, among other things, there -9- No. 1-19-0904 are “no allegations that an agent or employee of the State acted beyond the scope of his authority through wrongful acts” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parmar, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 22 ; Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 45 ; Healy, 133 Ill. 2d at 309 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Currie v. Lao
green
2 sentences2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. 2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Wozniak v. Conry
green
2 sentences2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. 2008Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160 , 592 N.E.2d at 981 ; see also Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104, 123 , 890 N.E.2d 446, 459 (2008); Wozniak, 288 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court
green
2 sentences2023It recited the general rule, stated by our supreme court in Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court, 67 Ill. 2d 392 (1977), that “ ‘[s]tatutes which in general terms authorize imposing costs *** but do not specifically refer to the State are not sufficient authority to hold the State liable for costs’ ” and concluded that rule applied even though in that case, as here, an exception to sovereign immunity authorized the underlying relief the costs were intended to compensate the successful party for pursuing. 2023Shempf, 2019 IL App (1st) 173146, ¶¶ 62-63 (quoting Department of Revenue, 67 Ill. 2d at 396 ). ¶ 31 We agree with the Grey court that the fees at issue here, where Mr. Lavery was required to initiate a court action in order to enjoin a state officer from obtaining records that were protected by statute, are part and parcel of the injunctive relief that is not barred by sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
McCormick v. Burt
green
1 sentence1996Although wilful and wanton conduct was an exception to sovereign immunity under the common law (see McCormick, 95 Ill. at 266 ), the Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12, 102 Ill. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.