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 2 courts 1956–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moy v. Nggreen2 sentences2016Courts have warned that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is an extraordinary doctrine that should be applied with caution because it “precludes a contradictory position without examining the truth of either statement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moy v. Ng, 371 Ill. 2016Courts have warned that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is an extraordinary doctrine that should be applied with caution because it “precludes a contradictory position without examining the truth of either statement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moy v. Ng, 371 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Miller v. Hotz
green
2 sentences1984It is a most extraordinary doctrine that the court has a discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision of the constitution according to its judgment as to its wisdom or whether the public good will be subserved by disregarding it.” 327 Ill. 433, 437 . 1984It is a most extraordinary doctrine that the court has a discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision of the constitution according to its judgment as to its wisdom or whether the public good will be subserved by disregarding it." 327 Ill. 433, 437 . | 5 | 1976–2016 |
Pepper Construction Company v. Palmolive Tower Condominiums, LLC
green
2 sentences2022The two positions “must be totally inconsistent—the truth of one must necessarily preclude the truth of the other.” Pepper Construction Co. v. Palmolive Tower Condominiums, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 142754 , ¶ 68. ¶ 65 Judicial estoppel is an extraordinary doctrine that should be applied with caution because it impinges on the fact finder’s role by precluding a contradictory position without examining the truth of either statement. 2018“Courts have warned that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is an extraordinary doctrine that should be applied with caution because it precludes a contradictory position without examining the truth of either statement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pepper Construction Co. v. Palmolive Tower Condominiums, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 142754 , ¶ 64. ¶ 34 The framework for ascertaining whether judicial estoppel should bar a claim is a two-step process. | 3 | 2017–2022 |
Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2016Miller v. Hotz, 327 Ill. 433, 437 .” Coalition I, 65 Ill. 2d at 460 . 2016Miller v. Hotz, 327 Ill. 433, 437 .” Coalition I, 65 Ill. 2d at 460 . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Seymour v. Collins
green
2 sentences2018Seymour, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 47 . 2017Seymour , 2015 IL 118432 , ¶ 47, 396 Ill.Dec. 135 , 39 N.E.3d 961 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Construction Systems, Inc. v. Fagelhaber, LLC
green
1 sentence2022Construction Systems, Inc. v. FagelHaber, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 141700 , ¶ 38. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1997There is nothing in section 10 which suggests that this language means that the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the general warrant requirement for entry into residential premises (see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 19 L. 1997There is nothing in section 10 which suggests that this language means that the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the general warrant requirement for entry into residential premises (see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 19 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Teter v. Spooner
green
1 sentence1956In Teter v. Spooner, 279 Ill. 39, 46-47 , the court said: “It would, indeed be an extraordinary rule, after these questions had been asked on direct examination, to hold that counsel for the plaintiffs in error could not, on cross-examination, ask questions of a similar character without waiving objections previously made to the questions on the direct examination. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.