65 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Metzgergreen2 sentences1992A loss of consortium action is not a derivative claim brought by a spouse as a representative of the injured spouse, but is an independent action. ( Page v. Hibbard (1987), 119 Ill.2d 41, 48 , 115 Ill.Dec. 544 , 518 N.E.2d 69 .) However, the action is independent in the sense that a loss of consortium award will neither be dismissed because the physically injured spouse settled and released the underlying personal injury claim ( Brown, 104 Ill.2d at 37 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 ), nor reduced by a worker's compensation lien against the injured spouse's settlement proceeds ( Page, 119 1992A loss of consortium action is not a derivative claim brought by a spouse as a representative of the injured spouse, but is an independent action. ( Page v. Hibbard (1987), 119 Ill.2d 41, 48 , 115 Ill.Dec. 544 , 518 N.E.2d 69 .) However, the action is independent in the sense that a loss of consortium award will neither be dismissed because the physically injured spouse settled and released the underlying personal injury claim ( Brown, 104 Ill.2d at 37 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 ), nor reduced by a worker's compensation lien against the injured spouse's settlement proceeds ( Page, 119 | 3 | 9 |
Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992). 2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992). | 3 | 6 |
Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp.green2 sentences1994(See Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 30, 38 ; Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp. (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 195, 208-09 .) The Department’s lien under section 5(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act did not attach to that portion of the settlement proceeds designated as a settlement of Mrs. Page’s claim for loss of consortium.” Page, 119 Ill. 2d at 47-48 . 1994(See Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill.2d 30, 38 [ 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 :] Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp. (1983), 97 Ill.2d 195, 208-09 [ 73 Ill.Dec. 350 , 454 N.E.2d 210 ].) The Department's lien under section 5(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act did not attach to that portion of the settlement proceeds designated as a settlement of Mrs. Page's claim for loss of consortium" Page, 119 Ill.2d at 47-48 , 115 Ill.Dec. 544 , 518 N.E.2d 69 . | 3 | 5 |
Richard Sharif v. International Development Group Co., Ltd., Mohammed Bin Naif Bin Abdul Al Aziz Al Saud, Faisal Al Faraj, and Salah Al Bassamgreen2 sentences2016Sharif v. International Development Group Co., 399 F.3d 857, 861 (7th Cir. 2005). 2016Sharif v. International Development Group Co., 399 F.3d 857, 861 (7th Cir. 2005). | 3 | 3 |
Perez v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.green2 sentences2000Perez v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. , 301 Ill. 2000Perez v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 301 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
Bloom Township High School District 206 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2014Thus, where an alleged violation of section 14(a)(1) is based on the same conduct alleged in a section 14(a)(3) violation, “the section 14(a)(1) violation is essentially a derivative violation.” Bloom Township High School District 206 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 312 Ill. 2014Thus, where an alleged violation of section 14(a)(1) is based on the same conduct alleged in a section 14(a)(3) violation, "the section 14(a)(1) violation is essentially a derivative violation." Bloom Township High School District 206 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 312 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. The City of Napervillegreen2 sentences2017Venturella did not submit such an order, however, and there was nothing to which Dreyfuss could have objected. ¶ 40 Under the strictures of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, dismissal is allowed when a “claim asserted against defendant is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.”735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014); see Patrick Engineering, Inc., 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 . 2017Venturella did not submit such an order, however, and there was nothing to which Dreyfuss could have objected. ¶ 40 Under the strictures of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, dismissal is allowed when a “claim asserted against defendant is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014); see Patrick Engineering, Inc., 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31 . | 2 | 2 |
Law Offices of Nye & Associates v. Boadogreen2 sentences2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the Chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no 2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no | 2 | 2 |
Severino v. FREEDOM WOODS, INC.green2 sentences2017App. 3d at 333 ); accord Severino, 407 Ill. 2017App. 3d at 333 ); accord Severino, 407 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re RNI Wind Down Corp.green2 sentences2016In a bankruptcy case, the right to bring a derivative action “vests exclusively to the trustee.” In re RNI Wind Down Corp., 348 B.R. 286, 293 (Bankr. 2016In a bankruptcy case, the right to bring a derivative action “vests exclusively to the trustee.” In re RNI Wind Down Corp., 348 B.R. 286, 293 (Bankr. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trusteegreen2 sentences2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh 2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh | 2 | 2 |
Speed District 802 v. Warninggreen2 sentences2014App. 3d 943, 957 , 728 N.E.2d 612, 623 (2000); see also SPEED District 802, 242 Ill. 2d at 113 , 950 N.E.2d at 1081 . 2014App. 3d 943, 957 , 728 N.E.2d 612, 623 (2000); see also SPEED District 802, 242 Ill. 2d at 113 , 950 N.E.2d at 1081 . | 2 | 2 |
Werner Frank and Werner Frank Enterprises, Inc. v. Hadesman and Frank, Inc.green2 sentences2005Frank v. Hadesman & Frank, Inc., 83 F.3d 158, 160 (7th Cir. 1996) (applying Illinois law). 2005Frank v. Hadesman & Frank, Inc. , 83 F.3d 158, 160 (7th Cir. 1996) (applying Illinois law). | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurancegreen2 sentences2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992). 2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992). | 1 | 5 |
Brown v. Tenneygreen1 sentence2023See Brown, 125 Ill. 2d at 355 (derivative action consists of a cause of action based on violation of a corporate right). ¶ 21 A direct or individual claim, however, is based on a direct and personal injury to the individual filing the lawsuit. | 1 | 1 |
| Zokoych v. Spaldinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kovak v. Barrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bivens Gardens Office Building, Inc. v. Barnett Banes of Florida, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Poliquin v. Sappgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Page v. Hibbard
green
2 sentences1993The court stated: "[A]n action for loss of consortium is not a derivative claim brought by the spouse as the personal representative of the employee, but is an independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered, such as loss of support and loss of society [Citations.] The Department's lien under section 5(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act did not attach to that portion of the settlement proceeds designated as a settlement of Mrs. Page's claim for loss of consortium." Page, 119 Ill. 2d at 48 , 518 N.E.2d at 72 . 1993The court stated: "[A]n action for loss of consortium is not a derivative claim brought by the spouse as the personal representative of the employee, but is an independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered, such as loss of support and loss of society [Citations.] The Department's lien under section 5(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act did not attach to that portion of the settlement proceeds designated as a settlement of Mrs. Page's claim for loss of consortium." Page, 119 Ill. 2d at 48 , 518 N.E.2d at 72 . | 12 | 1989–1994 |
Hamilton v. Conley
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2019Hamilton, 356 Ill. | 3 | 2018–2022 |
Lower v. Lanark Mutual Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2015This is true both at common law (see Lower, 151 Ill. 2015This is true both at common law (see Lower, 151 Ill. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Erickson v. Muskin Corp.
green
2 sentences1991Finally, the Erickson court relied on the decision in Page v. Hibbard , where the court decided that a defendant employer could not enforce a workers' compensation lien against settlement proceeds received by the injured employee's spouse for loss of consortium. ( Erickson, 180 Ill.App.3d at 130 , 128 Ill.Dec. 964 , 535 N.E.2d 475 .) In Page v. Hibbard the court stated that a consortium action "is not a derivative claim brought by the spouse as the personal representative of the employee, but is an independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered." Page, 119 Ill.2d at 48 , 11 1991Finally, the Erickson court relied on the decision in Page v. Hibbard , where the court decided that a defendant employer could not enforce a workers' compensation lien against settlement proceeds received by the injured employee's spouse for loss of consortium. ( Erickson, 180 Ill.App.3d at 130 , 128 Ill.Dec. 964 , 535 N.E.2d 475 .) In Page v. Hibbard the court stated that a consortium action "is not a derivative claim brought by the spouse as the personal representative of the employee, but is an independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered." Page, 119 Ill.2d at 48 , 11 | 3 | 1989–1991 |
Dearing v. Perry
green
2 sentences1991Dec. 544 , 518 N.E.2d 69 , which held that an employer is not entitled to reimbursement from an injured employee's spouse's recovery *923 for loss of consortium and that an action for loss of consortium is not a derivative claim, "but is an independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered." ( Page, 119 Ill.2d at 48 , 115 Ill.Dec. 544 , 518 N.E.2d 69 .) The court in Page remanded the cause to the trial court to determine if the value of the loss-of-consortium award, which was equal to the value of the employee's personal injuries, was proper in light of the total settlement. ( 1989The court pointed out that a spouse was not entitled to receive compensation for loss of consortium under the Act and held that the spouse's action for loss of consortium was not a derivative claim, but an independent action to recover for injuries the *960 spouse has suffered. ( Page, 119 Ill.2d at 48 .) The court in Page remanded the case for a determination of whether the recovery for loss of consortium award, $12,000, which equaled the amount provided to her spouse for his injuries was "fair and reasonable in light of the total settlement." ( Page, 119 Ill.2d at 50 .) In reference to this | 3 | 1989–1991 |
Stevens v. McGuireWoods L.L.P.
green
2 sentences2022App. 3d at 62 (the relevant consideration is “whether it is to the corporation or to the individual shareholder that injury has been done”). ¶ 25 Turning to whether Staisz had standing to bring the derivative breach of fiduciary duty claim, “the law in Illinois is well-settled that, to bring a derivative claim, the plaintiff must have been a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains and must maintain his status as a shareholder throughout the entire pendency of the action.” (Emphasis in original.) Stevens v. McGuireWoods LLP, 2015 IL 118652, ¶ 23 . 2021Stevens v. McGuireWoods LLP, 2015 IL 118652, ¶ 23 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Quintas v. Asset Management Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the Chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no 2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bodzianowski
green
2 sentences2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the Chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no 2017In fact, Venturella specifies in his reply brief: “Venturella’s opposition to the dismissal of the Derivative Claim has never involved a debate over [the elements of res judicata].” Rather, the dispute lies in whether an exception to res judicata should apply, that is, whether the chancery court expressly reserved the derivative claim. “[O]nce a party establishes a prima facie case of res judicata, the burden shifts to the opposing party to properly plead the existence of an exception to res judicata.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bodzianowski, 2016 IL App (3d) 150632, ¶ 19 . ¶ 33 As no | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. v. Berman (In Re Berman)
green
2 sentences2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh 2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh | 2 | 2016–2016 |
A.G. Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC
green
2 sentences2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh 2016Cullen Construction, Inc. v. Burnham Partners, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 122538, ¶ 46 ; In re Berman, 629 F.3d 761 , 766 (7th Cir. 2011); In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., 474 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that upon the corporation’s insolvency, the corporate officer’s duty extends from the shareholders to the creditors). ¶ 43 Given our holding that the corporation’s insolvency extended the class of those eligible to bring a derivative claim to include creditors as well as shareholders, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that plaintiffs here lacked standing to bring their sh | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Roberts v. Sisters of Saint Francis Health Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Id. ¶ 14 Under section 12-311 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, a minor may bring an action for personal injuries within two years after the minor turns 18, regardless of whether the cause of action accrued more than two years earlier. 735 ILCS 5/13-211 (West 2012). 2014Id. ¶ 14 Under section 12-311 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, a minor may bring an action for personal injuries within two years after the minor turns 18, regardless of whether the cause of action accrued more than two years earlier. 735 ILCS 5/13-211 (West 2012). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holtzman
green
2 sentences1998Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holtzman, 248 Ill. 1998Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holtzman, 248 Ill. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Alvis v. Ribar
green
2 sentences1989The first district admitted that these cases do not directly answer the question as to whether a spouse’s consortium award should be reduced by the injured spouse’s negligence, but it found that the cases indicate a “shift away from the pre-Aims (Alvis v. Ribar (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 1 , 421 N.E.2d 886 [which adopted comparative negligence]) concepts that all contributory negligence of an injured spouse was imputed to the spouse claiming loss of consortium.” (Erickson, 180 Ill. 1989The first district admitted that these cases do not directly answer the question as to whether a spouse’s consortium award should be reduced by the injured spouse’s negligence, but it found that the cases indicate a “shift away from the pre-Aims (Alvis v. Ribar (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 1 , 421 N.E.2d 886 [which adopted comparative negligence]) concepts that all contributory negligence of an injured spouse was imputed to the spouse claiming loss of consortium.” (Erickson, 180 Ill. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Cruz
green
1 sentence2023Cruz, 162 Ill. 2d at 348 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Davis v. Dyson
green
1 sentence2023Davis, 387 Ill. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In Re Thebus green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Caparos v. Morton green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Aronson v. Lewis green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Pogostin v. Rice green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| First National Bank of Cicero v. Sylvester green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Slavin v. Germantown Fire Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Wilson v. Askew green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Filip v. North River Insurance Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Cross v. Country Companies green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Shulman v. Ritzenberg green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Steller v. Miles green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Berman v. Allan green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Becker v. Schwartz green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.