11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parkway Bank and Trust Co. v. Meseljevicgreen1 sentence2012As the American 7150 crane was manufactured in 1993, it was over five years old.” ¶ 15 The trial court found that penalties under the Illinois Insurance Code are not warranted for Travelers’ response to either claim because Travelers did not knowingly violate the Code, a bona fide dispute existed between the parties, and the provisions of sections 919.50 and 919.20 of title 50 of the Illinois Administrative Code do not apply to inland marine policies. ¶ 16 AEI filed this timely appeal from the trial court’s order granting Travelers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. -3- ¶ 17 ANALYSIS ¶ 18 | 1 | 1 |
Schultz v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.green1 sentence1996See Schultz v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 222 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 |
|---|---|---|
J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Wild, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Standard of Review ¶ 27 “Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a tribunal’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.” J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Wild, Inc., 2016 IL 119870, ¶ 23 . 2017Standard of Review ¶ 27 “Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a tribunal’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.” J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Wild, Inc., 2016 IL 119870, ¶ 23 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Bradley v. The City of Marion Illinois
green
2 sentences2017While only the Travelers defendants raised the issue of the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction below, and the circuit court did not address this argument in its order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, we are obligated to independently analyze the issue of the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction “cannot be waived, stipulated to, or consented to by the parties.” Bradley, 2015 IL App (5th) 140267, ¶ 13 . ¶ 26 1. 2017While only the Travelers defendants raised the issue of the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction below, and the circuit court did not address this argument in its order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, we are obligated to independently analyze the issue of the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction “cannot be waived, stipulated to, or consented to by the parties.” Bradley, 2015 IL App (5th) 140267, ¶ 13 . -7- ¶ 26 1. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 465 . 2014Id. at 465 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Boyd v. Travelers Insurance
green
2 sentences2001Boyd, 166 Ill. 2d at 192 , 652 N.E.2d at 269 . 2001Boyd, 166 Ill. 2d at 192 , 652 N.E.2d at 269 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Harter v. Lenmark
green
1 sentence1994We find Harter v. Lenmark (Minn. 1989), 443 N.W.2d 537 , supportive of the position that correspondence sent to Harold personally was not notice to Marlys of Travelers’ claim against the estate. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pell v. Victor J. Andrew High School
green
1 sentence1987App. 3d 423 , 462 N.E.2d 858 .) The fact that General Accident presented the position of the plaintiffs in opposing Travelers’ motion for summary judgment does not, in our judgment, make General Accident’s position adverse to Travelers’ for purposes of this appeal. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Thornton v. Paul
green
2 sentences1980However, it carefully noted that: "Our holding in this case is not a repudiation of the holding of Sims , but is a narrow exception to that holding applicable only under conditions such as are presented in the present case." 74 Ill.2d 132, 159 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 346 . *791 It appears from Travelers' brief that it is contending that a fatal conflict of interest existed because (1) it was denying coverage; (2) the insurer's interest lay in proving that Clancy was unlawfully in possession whereas Clancy's interests rested in showing he was driving with permission; (3) the claims against Clancy and 1980However, it carefully noted that: "Our holding in this case is not a repudiation of the holding of Sims , but is a narrow exception to that holding applicable only under conditions such as are presented in the present case." 74 Ill.2d 132, 159 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 346 . *791 It appears from Travelers' brief that it is contending that a fatal conflict of interest existed because (1) it was denying coverage; (2) the insurer's interest lay in proving that Clancy was unlawfully in possession whereas Clancy's interests rested in showing he was driving with permission; (3) the claims against Clancy and | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
2 sentences1980Travelers’ claim that it was excused from defending Clancy because of the conflict of interest between Clancy and Urso and the school is based on our recent decision in Associated Indemnity Company v. Insurance Company of North America (1979), 68 Ill. 1980Travelers' claim that it was excused from defending Clancy because of the conflict of interest between Clancy and Urso and the school is based on our recent decision in Associated Indemnity Company v. Insurance Company of North America (1979), 68 Ill. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.