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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co.green2 sentences2019“This rule is founded on the premise that litigation should have an end and that no person should be unnecessarily harassed with a multiplicity of lawsuits.” Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 340 (1996). ¶ 90 Plaintiffs assert that their claims do not implicate the single-recovery principle because the purpose of claim preclusion is to prevent future actions on grounds that could have been raised, not to hinder future actions on grounds that did not yet exist in an earlier action. 2019“This rule is founded on the premise that litigation should have an end and that no person should be unnecessarily harassed with a multiplicity of lawsuits.” Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 340 (1996). ¶ 90 Plaintiffs assert that their claims do not implicate the single-recovery principle because the purpose of claim preclusion is to prevent future actions on grounds that could have been raised, not to hinder future actions on grounds that did not yet exist in an earlier action. | 2 | 2 |
Midamerica Bank, FSB v. Charter One Bank, FSBgreen2 sentences2010See MidAmerica Bank, FSB v. Charter One Bank, FSB, 232 Ill. 2d 560 (2009). 2010See MidAmerica Bank, FSB -8- v. Charter One Bank, FSB, 232 Ill. 2d 560 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
Moller v. Lipovgreen2 sentences2008See Moller, 368 Ill. 2008See Moller, 368 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co.green1 sentence2020Id. ¶¶ 91, 98; see Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Saichek v. Lupagreen2 sentences2019The majority fails to fully address this issue and merely makes the unexplained conclusion that “[t]his court should not find plaintiffs’ allegations barred based on what might happen in the future.” Supra ¶ 39. ¶ 89 In Illinois, we follow the single-recovery principle, which holds that “there may not be more than one recovery of damages for a single, indivisible injury.” Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127, 140 (2003). 2019The majority fails to fully address this issue and merely makes the unexplained conclusion that “[t]his court should not find plaintiffs’ allegations barred based on what might happen in the future.” Supra ¶ 39. ¶ 89 In Illinois, we follow the single-recovery principle, which holds that “there may not be more than one recovery of damages for a single, indivisible injury.” Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127, 140 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co.
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs do not cite any Illinois case law to support their point and primarily rely on a federal case from Pennsylvania, Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 265 F.R.D. 208 (E.D. 2019Plaintiffs do not cite any Illinois case law to support their point and primarily rely on a federal case from Pennsylvania, Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 265 F.R.D. 208 (E.D. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
green
2 sentences2019The complaint in Friends for All Children, Inc. was brought on behalf of numerous Vietnamese orphans who survived an aviation disaster in South Vietnam in 1975 and alleged that, due to both the “decompression of the troop compartment and the crash itself, these survivors suffered, inter alia, from a neurological development disorder generically classified as Minimal Brain Dysfunction (‘MBD’).” 746 F.2d at 818-19 . 2019The complaint in Friends for All Children, Inc. was brought on behalf of numerous Vietnamese orphans who survived an aviation disaster in South Vietnam in 1975 and alleged that, due to both the “decompression of the troop compartment and the crash itself, these survivors suffered, inter alia, from a neurological development disorder generically classified as Minimal Brain Dysfunction (‘MBD’).” 746 F.2d at 818-19 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Thornton v. GARCINI
green
2 sentences2010In Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 , 928 N.E.2d 804 (2009), our supreme court held that the defendant forfeited his right to raise the single-recovery rule to bar damages for emotional distress by raising the rule for the first time in a posttrial motion. 2010In Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 , 928 N.E.2d 804 (2009), our supreme court held that the defendant forfeited his right to raise the single-recovery rule to bar damages for emotional distress by raising the rule for the first time in a posttrial motion. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Bodam v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2008App. at 941, 609 N.E.2d at 805 . 7 Before we apply the single-recovery rule in the present case, we must consider plaintiff’s argument that defendant has waived this assertion by failing to raise it in the trial court at any time prior to the post-trial motion filed after the second trial. 2008Bodam v. City of Chicago, 241 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Lewis v. NL Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019In Lewis, the court stated that it found “no reason why the expense of such an examination is any less a present injury compensable in a tort action than the medical expenses that might be incurred to treat an actual physical injury caused by such a breach of such duty” (emphasis added) (id.), but in Lewis v. NL Industries, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122080 , a subsequent appeal of the same case, the court referred to its prior decision in Lewis as accepting “plaintiffs’ theory that the cost of lead testing or assessment could constitute a compensable damage” (emphasis added) (id. ¶ 2). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.