guarantee immunity in Illinois

2018The authorities included both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, the latter of which specifically notes that the mishandling of a corpse creates “ ‘an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.’ ” Id. (quoting Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 54, at 362 (W.

2017The authorities included both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, the latter of which specifically notes that the mishandling of a corpse creates " 'an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.' " Id. (quoting Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 54, at 362 (W.

1992These restrictions on State jurisdiction over nonresidents “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenience or distant litigation (the fairness and reasonableness criteria); they are a consequence of territorial limitation on the power of the respective States.” (Boyer, 73 Ill. 2d at 337 , 383 N.E.2d at 225 ; also see Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235 , 2 L.

1992These restrictions on State jurisdiction over nonresidents “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenience or distant litigation (the fairness and reasonableness criteria); they are a consequence of territorial limitation on the power of the respective States.” (Boyer, 73 Ill. 2d at 337 , 383 N.E.2d at 225 ; also see Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235 , 2 L.

1992These restrictions on State jurisdiction over nonresidents “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenience or distant litigation (the fairness and reasonableness criteria); they are a consequence of territorial limitation on the power of the respective States.” (Boyer, 73 Ill. 2d at 337 , 383 N.E.2d at 225 ; also see Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235 , 2 L.

1992These restrictions on State jurisdiction over nonresidents “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenience or distant litigation (the fairness and reasonableness criteria); they are a consequence of territorial limitation on the power of the respective States.” (Boyer, 73 Ill. 2d at 337 , 383 N.E.2d at 225 ; also see Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235 , 2 L.

1991The Respondent contests Guarantee’s claim for profits citing Egizii Electric v. State (1973), 32 Ill.

1990Thereafter, Guarantee filed its motion to enter pro rata judgment, arguing that based upon the authority of Continental Casualty Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1967), 84 Ill.

1905Shepard v. Mills, supra. The alleged failure of the apparatus to warm the rooms to the extent prescribed by the guarantee clause, amounted, as tye have said, to but a breach of warranty of which appellee could only take advantage in this suit, by either recouping the damages resulting therefrom under the plea of general issue, or bjT a plea of set-off or counter-claim (Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425 ), under either of which pleas he would be bound to prove the same facts in relation to his demand as if he had instituted an action upon it.

1905Shepard v. Mills, supra. The alleged failure of the apparatus to warm the rooms to the extent prescribed by the guarantee clause, amounted, as tye have said, to but a breach of warranty of which appellee could only take advantage in this suit, by either recouping the damages resulting therefrom under the plea of general issue, or bjT a plea of set-off or counter-claim (Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425 ), under either of which pleas he would be bound to prove the same facts in relation to his demand as if he had instituted an action upon it.