10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois Gasoline Dealers Ass'n v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2015Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 164, 179 (1988) (plaintiffs could not maintain that the process of decertifying a landmark violated the 16 1-14-1157 City of Chicago's landmark ordinance when the ordinance was not enacted in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision); Illinois Gasoline Dealers Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 119 Ill. 2d 391, 404 (1988) (the court declined to review a claim that the city council failed to follow an internal rule in the passage of a fuel tax). 1999Relying upon two distinguishable cases, Landmarks Preservation Council v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 164 (1988), and Illinois Gasoline Dealer's Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 119 Ill. 2d 391 (1988), defendants argue that a municipality's failure to follow an internal rule does not invalidate the action unless the municipality has violated a statutory or constitutional provision. | 1 | 4 |
Hudson v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2018Thus, Morton impliedly stands for the proposition that, although a violation of an internal rule will not automatically constitute willful and wanton conduct, a jury may consider it along with other evidence in reaching a determination of willful and wanton conduct.” Hudson, 378 Ill. 2017Thus, Morton impliedly stands for the proposition that, although a violation of an internal rule will not automatically constitute willful and wanton conduct, a jury may consider it along with other evidence in reaching a determination of willful and wanton conduct." Hudson , 378 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Landmarks Preservation Council v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2015Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 164, 179 (1988) (plaintiffs could not maintain that the process of decertifying a landmark violated the 16 1-14-1157 City of Chicago's landmark ordinance when the ordinance was not enacted in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision); Illinois Gasoline Dealers Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 119 Ill. 2d 391, 404 (1988) (the court declined to review a claim that the city council failed to follow an internal rule in the passage of a fuel tax). 1999Relying upon two distinguishable cases, Landmarks Preservation Council v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 164 (1988), and Illinois Gasoline Dealer's Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 119 Ill. 2d 391 (1988), defendants argue that a municipality's failure to follow an internal rule does not invalidate the action unless the municipality has violated a statutory or constitutional provision. | 1 | 3 |
Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co.green2 sentences2015In other words, "[t]his court cannot handle matters which in effect are attempts to overrule decisions of a legislative body based upon alleged failure to follow requirements imposed by that body itself." Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co., 87 Ill. 1988In Illinois Gasoline Dealers Association, we quoted with approval the following language in Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co. (1980), 87 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Hoffman v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporationgreen1 sentence2024Corp., 2017 IL App (1st) 170537, ¶ 47 (violation of an internal rule can constitute some evidence of negligence), and Vasquez v. State, 67 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morton v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2018Morton, 286 Ill. 2017Morton , 286 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Luss v. Village of Forest Park
green
2 sentences2018The key word in that quote is “alone.” As noted above, the Morton court held that a violation of an internal rule, by itself, did not constitute proof of willful and wanton conduct. ¶ 45 Similarly, defendant cites Luss v. Village of Forest Park, 377 Ill. 2017The key word in that quote is "alone." As noted above, the Morton court held that a violation of an internal rule, by itself, did not constitute proof of willful and wanton conduct. ¶ 45 Similarly, defendant cites Luss v. Village of Forest Park , 377 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Klomann v. Illinois Munucipal Retirement Fund
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 227 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.