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 1907–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krejci v. Capriottigreen2 sentences2014See Krejci v. Capriotti, 16 Ill. 2014See Krejci v. Capriotti, 16 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Schultz v. NORTHEAST ILL. REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP.green1 sentence2022Corp, 201 Ill. 2d 260, 274 (2002). ¶ 33 To prevail on a trespass claim, a plaintiff must plead and prove negligent or intentional conduct by the defendant, which has resulted in an intrusion on the plaintiff’s property. | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Urbana-Champaign Sanitary Districtgreen1 sentence2022Porter v. Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District, 237 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
McMath v. Katholigreen1 sentence2021See McMath v. Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251, 255 (2000) (a party cannot complain of error which he induced to the court to make or to which he consented). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Highland Parkgreen1 sentence2021Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional trespass requires a showing of “ ‘a high degree of certainty that an intrusion of another’s property will result from the act of the defendant.’ ” Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Highland Park, 214 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Application of County Treasurergreen1 sentence2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . - 36 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 "Stated differently, a factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence." Id. (citing Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). "[A | 1 | 1 |
Eychaner v. Grossgreen2 sentences2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . - 36 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 "Stated differently, a factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence." Id. (citing Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). "[A 2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . - 36 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 "Stated differently, a factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence." Id. (citing Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). "[A | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2013Justice Sotomayor joined the majority in Jones because the trespass analysis provided a “narrower basis for decision.” Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 958 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). 2013Justice Sotomayor joined the majority in Jones because the trespass analysis provided a “narrower basis for decision.” Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 958 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
1472 N. Milwaukee, LTD. v. Feinerman
green
2 sentences2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court’s findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . 2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . - 36 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 "Stated differently, a factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence." Id. (citing Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). "[A | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Plummer v. Dill
green
2 sentences1927(Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426 , 31 N. E. 128 ; Illinois Cent. 1907(Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426 ; 31 N. E. | 2 | 1907–1927 |
Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance LLC
green
1 sentence2025Contegra also contends that we should reverse the jury’s verdict in favor of AIW on the trespass claim because Contegra entered AIW’s premises pursuant to the replevin orders, which were valid court orders. - 36 - No. 1-19-1525 ¶ 117 “A defendant commits the tort of trespass by entering onto a plaintiff’s land without permission, invitation, or other right.” Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 191779, ¶ 30 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Union Pacific Railroad v. Chicago Transit Authority
green
1 sentence2020Chicago Transit Authority, 647 F.3d at 680 . ¶ 25 The “state or local action” which is preempted under the Termination Act can be a state- law tort claim including a trespass claim, an award of damages, or other state-law remedies. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Terra Foundation for American Art
green
2 sentences2014We disagree. ¶ 82 A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clear or where the trial court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13 . - 36 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 "Stated differently, a factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence." Id. (citing Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). "[A 2014Thus, we reject the District's position that LoGuidice's estimates were speculative and uncertain. - 38 - 2014 IL App (1st) 130307 ¶ 85 We further reject the District's argument that the $100 nominal damages award for the trespass claim was against the manifest weight of the evidence as nominal damages may always be awarded for legal injury arising from trespass. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sullivan v. Boston & Albany Railroad
green
1 sentence1927(Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426 , 31 N. E. 128 ; Illinois Cent. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.