9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajogreen2 sentences2004The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention on the basis that “the Illinois judgment was entered almost immediately and without an evidentiary hearing,” and it stated, “Such action does not constitute relatively substantial proceedings.” Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Distajo, 944 F. Supp. 1010, 1023 (D. 2004Distajo, 944 F. Supp. at 1023 . | 2 | 2 |
Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc.green2 sentences2004Our supreme court observed that it had applied the "ordinary person" standard, and not the ordinary doctor standard, to assess the danger of a prosthetic knee in Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc. , 169 Ill. 2d 525, 541 (1996). 2004Our supreme court observed that it had applied the “ordinary person” standard, and not the ordinary doctor standard, to assess the danger of a prosthetic knee in Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 541 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lo v. Provena Covenant Medical Center
green
2 sentences2015This Court's Decision in Lo ¶ 22 In Lo, 356 Ill. 2015This Court's Decision in Lo ¶ 22 In Lo, 356 Ill. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Hansen , 198 Ill. 2d at 435 . 2004Hansen, 198 Ill. 2d at 435 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Gorman v. St. Francis Hospital
neutral
1 sentence1982Francis Hospital (1965), 60 Ill. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Central Locomotive & Car Works v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1923Defendant in error also contends that a demand for a permit to a doctor is a claim for compensation and was so held in Central Locomotive Works v. Industrial Com. 290 Ill. 436 , and therefore a demand for treatment by the inspector must also be considered as a demand for compensation. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.