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 2002–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.green2 sentences2015Renewing an argument rejected by the appellate court, defendant contends that under Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33 (1994), the concept of foreseeability, embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, limits the liability of both negligent and intentional tortfeasors. 2015Renewing an argument rejected by the appellate court, defendant contends that under Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33 (1994), the concept of foreseeability, embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, limits the liability of both negligent and intentional tortfeasors. | 2 | 4 |
McGrath v. Faheygreen2 sentences2015See McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 93 (1988) (observing that “a jury could reasonably conclude that such distress proximately resulted from defendants’ course of conduct”); Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners’ Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113577, ¶ 36 (plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that “the defendant’s conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff’s distress” (citing Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center, 2012 IL App (4th) 110421, ¶ 39 )). ¶ 31 Because an intentional tortfeasor’s liability is limited by the concept of foreseeability embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, a c 2015See McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 93 (1988) (observing that “a jury could reasonably conclude that such distress proximately resulted from defendants’ course of conduct”); Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners’ Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113577-U , ¶ 36 (plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that “the defendant’s conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff’s distress” (citing Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center, 2012 IL App (4th) 110421, ¶ 39 )). ¶ 31 Because an intentional tortfeasor’s liability is limited by the concept of foreseeability embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, | 2 | 2 |
Zekman v. Direct American Marketers, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Zekman, 182 Ill.2d at 373 , 231 Ill.Dec. 80 , 695 N.E.2d 853 ; Martin, 163 Ill.2d at 52-54, 58-61 , 205 Ill.Dec. 443 , 643 N.E.2d 734 . 2002See, e.g., Zekman, 182 Ill. 2d at 373 ; Martin, 163 Ill. 2d at 52-54, 58-61 . | 2 | 2 |
Bensman v. Reedgreen1 sentence2019Bensman v. Reed, 299 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners' Associationgreen1 sentence2015See McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 93 (1988) (observing that “a jury could reasonably conclude that such distress proximately resulted from defendants’ course of conduct”); Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners’ Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113577, ¶ 36 (plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that “the defendant’s conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff’s distress” (citing Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center, 2012 IL App (4th) 110421, ¶ 39 )). ¶ 31 Because an intentional tortfeasor’s liability is limited by the concept of foreseeability embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, a c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2024Id.; Oliveira, 201 Ill. 2d at 149 . “[T]his language imposes a proximate causation requirement.” Id. ¶ 22 We first turn to the trial court’s finding that Jidd violated section 2ZZ of the Act, as we find this issue to be largely dispositive of this appeal. 2024Id.; Oliveira, 201 Ill. 2d at 149 . “[T]his language imposes a proximate causation requirement.” Id. ¶ 22 We first turn to the trial court’s finding that Jidd violated section 2ZZ of the Act, as we find this issue to be largely dispositive of this appeal. | 5 | 2005–2024 |
Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp.
green
2 sentences2024De Bouse, 235 Ill. 2d at 555 . ¶ 27 This court elaborated on the proximate causation requirement in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517 (2004). 2024De Bouse, 235 Ill. 2d at 555 . ¶ 27 This court elaborated on the proximate causation requirement in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517 (2004). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
De Bouse v. Bayer AG
green
2 sentences2024De Bouse, 235 Ill. 2d at 555 . ¶ 27 This court elaborated on the proximate causation requirement in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517 (2004). 2024De Bouse, 235 Ill. 2d at 555 . ¶ 27 This court elaborated on the proximate causation requirement in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill. 2d 517 (2004). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center
green
2 sentences2015See McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 93 (1988) (observing that “a jury could reasonably conclude that such distress proximately resulted from defendants’ course of conduct”); Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners’ Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113577, ¶ 36 (plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that “the defendant’s conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff’s distress” (citing Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center, 2012 IL App (4th) 110421, ¶ 39 )). ¶ 31 Because an intentional tortfeasor’s liability is limited by the concept of foreseeability embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, a c 2015See McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 93 (1988) (observing that “a jury could reasonably conclude that such distress proximately resulted from defendants’ course of conduct”); Duffy v. Orlan Brook Condominium Owners’ Ass’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113577-U , ¶ 36 (plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that “the defendant’s conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff’s distress” (citing Ulm v. Memorial Medical Center, 2012 IL App (4th) 110421, ¶ 39 )). ¶ 31 Because an intentional tortfeasor’s liability is limited by the concept of foreseeability embodied in the doctrine of proximate causation, | 2 | 2015–2015 |
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.