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 1 courts 1990–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mlynarski v. Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Centergreen2 sentences2022The Burden of Proof ¶ 58 “ ‘The party who claims the privilege has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” Doe v. Township High School District 211, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 70 , 34 N.E.3d 652 (quoting Mlynarski, 213 Ill. 2015Luke's Medical Center, 213 Ill. | 3 | 4 |
MacK v. Utah State Department of Commercegreen1 sentence2023Tebbens v. Levin & Conde, 2018 IL App (1st) 170777, ¶ 24 ; Mack v. Utah State Department of Commerce, Division of Securities, 221 P.3d 194, 203 (Utah 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1990Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” The party who claims a privilege “ ‘has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” (Cox v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 , 337 N.E.2d 15 , quoting Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 37, 42 , 132 N.E.2d 532 .) Among other things, the party must prove that the statement was made for a privileged purpose (Cox, 61 Ill. 2d at 420 ) and sh 1990Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” The party who claims a privilege “ ‘has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” (Cox v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 , 337 N.E.2d 15 , quoting Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 37, 42 , 132 N.E.2d 532 .) Among other things, the party must prove that the statement was made for a privileged purpose (Cox, 61 Ill. 2d at 420 ) and sh | 3 | 1990–1995 |
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
green
2 sentences2022App. 3d at 431 ); Consolidation Coal, 89 Ill. 2d at 119 . ¶ 59 “A party claiming that discovery material is privileged may not merely assert that the matter is confidential and privileged; rather, he should support such a claim ‘either by [(1)] producing the materials for an in camera inspection or [(2)] by submitting affidavits setting forth facts sufficient to establish the applicability of the privilege to the particular documents.’ ” Youle v. Ryan, 349 Ill. 2012Consolidation Coal Co., 89 Ill. 2d at 119 ; Fox Moraine, LLC, 2011 IL App (2d) 100017, ¶ 63 . ¶ 35 Here, defendants’ joint privilege log represented that certain documents were protected as work product. | 2 | 2012–2022 |
Claxton v. Thackston
green
2 sentences1995App. 3d 232, 235 , 559 N.E.2d 82 .) The party who claims a privilege has the burden of coming forward with factual evidence which establishes the privilege. 1991(Claxton v. Thackston (1990), 201 Ill. | 2 | 1991–1995 |
Tebbens v. Levin & Conde
green
1 sentence2023Tebbens v. Levin & Conde, 2018 IL App (1st) 170777, ¶ 24 ; Mack v. Utah State Department of Commerce, Division of Securities, 221 P.3d 194, 203 (Utah 2009). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Youle v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2022App. 3d at 431 ); Consolidation Coal, 89 Ill. 2d at 119 . ¶ 59 “A party claiming that discovery material is privileged may not merely assert that the matter is confidential and privileged; rather, he should support such a claim ‘either by [(1)] producing the materials for an in camera inspection or [(2)] by submitting affidavits setting forth facts sufficient to establish the applicability of the privilege to the particular documents.’ ” Youle v. Ryan, 349 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Doe v. Township High School District 211
green
2 sentences2022The Burden of Proof ¶ 58 “ ‘The party who claims the privilege has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” Doe v. Township High School District 211, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 70 , 34 N.E.3d 652 (quoting Mlynarski, 213 Ill. 2022The Burden of Proof ¶ 58 “ ‘The party who claims the privilege has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” Doe v. Township High School District 211, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 70 , 34 N.E.3d 652 (quoting Mlynarski, 213 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fox Moraine, LLC v. United City of Yorkville
green
1 sentence2012Consolidation Coal Co., 89 Ill. 2d at 119 ; Fox Moraine, LLC, 2011 IL App (2d) 100017, ¶ 63 . ¶ 35 Here, defendants’ joint privilege log represented that certain documents were protected as work product. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hyams v. Evanston Hospital
green
1 sentence1995(See Cox v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 , 337 N.E.2d 15 ; Hyams, 225 Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority
green
2 sentences1990Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” The party who claims a privilege “ ‘has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” (Cox v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 , 337 N.E.2d 15 , quoting Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 37, 42 , 132 N.E.2d 532 .) Among other things, the party must prove that the statement was made for a privileged purpose (Cox, 61 Ill. 2d at 420 ) and sh 1990Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” The party who claims a privilege “ ‘has the burden of showing the facts which give rise to the privilege.’ ” (Cox v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 416, 419-20 , 337 N.E.2d 15 , quoting Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority (1956), 8 Ill. 2d 37, 42 , 132 N.E.2d 532 .) Among other things, the party must prove that the statement was made for a privileged purpose (Cox, 61 Ill. 2d at 420 ) and sh | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.