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.
10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heightsgreen2 sentences2017For instance, our supreme court has observed that section 2-103 codifies (at least in part) the common-law public duty rule, namely, that “municipalities are not liable in tort to members of the general public for failure to enforce local laws or ordinances.” Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heights, 139 Ill. 2d 501, 507-08 (1990) (citing Ill. 2016For instance, our supreme court has observed that section 2-103 codifies (at least in part) the common-law public-duty rule, namely, that “municipalities are not liable in tort to members of the general public for failure to enforce local laws or ordinances.” Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heights, 139 Ill. 2d 501, 507-08 (1990) (citing Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directorsgreen2 sentences2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, “neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.” Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 . ¶ 47 Plaintiff also argues, alternatively, that Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 , should be read to nullify the public du 2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, “neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.” Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 . ¶ 47 Plaintiff also argues, alternatively, that Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 , should be read to nullify the public du | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Calumet Citygreen2 sentences2011See Calloway v. Kinkelaar, 168 Ill. 2d 312, 326-27 (1995); Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 385-86 (1994). 2011See Calloway v. Kinkelaar, 168 Ill. 2d 312, 326-27 (1995); Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 385-86 (1994). | 2 | 2 |
Calloway v. Kinkelaargreen2 sentences2011See Calloway v. Kinkelaar, 168 Ill. 2d 312, 326-27 (1995); Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 385-86 (1994). 2011See Calloway v. Kinkelaar, 168 Ill. 2d 312, 326-27 (1995); Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 385-86 (1994). | 2 | 2 |
Zimmerman v. Village of Skokiegreen2 sentences2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, “neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.” Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 . ¶ 47 Plaintiff also argues, alternatively, that Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 , should be read to nullify the public du 2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, ‘neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.’ Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 .” Id. ¶ 46. | 1 | 3 |
Huey v. the Town of Cicerogreen1 sentence2015Huey v. Town of Cicero, 41 Ill. 2d 361, 363 (1968); Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30, 32 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District
green
2 sentences2023App. 3d at 1020—both of which dealt with the now-defunct special duty exception to the common-law public duty rule. ¶ 47 The public duty rule, which provided that local governmental entities and their employees owed no duty of care to individual members of the general public to provide governmental services, and the “special duty” exception to this rule were both abolished by our supreme court in Coleman, 2016 IL 117952, ¶ 61 . 2020OPINION ¶1 The primary issue we are asked to address is whether our decision in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District, 2016 IL 117952 , abolishing the common- law public duty rule, applies retroactively to this case. | 3 | 2020–2023 |
Simpkins v. CSX Transportation
green
2 sentences2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, “neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.” Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 . ¶ 47 Plaintiff also argues, alternatively, that Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 , should be read to nullify the public du 2016Because of this distinction between duties and immunities, “neither this court’s decision in Molitor abolishing sovereign immunity, the General Assembly’s passage of the Tort Immunity Act, nor the ratification of the 1970 Illinois Constitution altered the common-law public duty rule that a governmental entity generally owes no duty to provide an individual citizen with specific municipal services.” Zimmerman, 183 Ill. 2d at 45 . ¶ 47 Plaintiff also argues, alternatively, that Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 , should be read to nullify the public du | 2 | 2016–2016 |
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.