Fidelity motion (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

Fidelity motion in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2019 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwestgreen
ill · 2005 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017On this barren record, we find no triable issue as to when TimCal first notified James River of Fidelity’s claim. ¶ 20 Claim ¶ 21 Fidelity argues that the term “Claim” in the James River policies applies ambiguously to the facts of this case, and we should construe the term to apply only to the letter Fidelity sent to James River on April 23, 2013, and not to the letter Fidelity sent to TimCal on July 9, 2012. ¶ 22 When courts construe insurance policies, 9 No. 1-16-2116 “our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties, as expressed in the policy language.

2017On this barren record, we find no triable issue as to when TimCal first notified James River of Fidelity’s claim. ¶ 20 Claim ¶ 21 Fidelity argues that the term “Claim” in the James River policies applies ambiguously to the facts of this case, and we should construe the term to apply only to the letter Fidelity sent to James River on April 23, 2013, and not to the letter Fidelity sent to TimCal on July 9, 2012. ¶ 22 When courts construe insurance policies, -5- “our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties, as expressed in the policy language. [Citation.]

22
Gehrman v. Zajacgreen
illappct · 1975 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Gehrman v. Zajac, 34 Ill.

2017Gehrman v. Zajac, 34 Ill.

22
Farley Metals, Inc. v. Barber Colman Co.green
illappct · 1994 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to apprise the trial court of newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or errors in the court’s earlier application of the law.” Farley Metals, Inc. v. Barber Colman Co., 269 Ill.

1997"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to apprise the trial court of newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or errors in the court's earlier application of the law." Farley Metals, Inc. v. Barber Colman Co., 269 Ill.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad green
ill · 1967
2 sentences

1997Pedrick, 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .

1997Pedrick, 37 Ill. 2d 494 , 229 N.E.2d 504 .

21997–1997
The United City of Yorkville v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland green
illappct · 2019
1 sentence

2019The court agreed with WRH that City of Elgin was distinguishable because, in the - 13 - 2019 IL App (2d) 180230 present case, TRG and WRH “only bought residential lots and did not buy unplatted neighborhoods.” The court also denied Fidelity’s motion to strike. ¶ 53 Fidelity ultimately settled its claims against the City.

12019–2019
Karen Stavins Enterprises, Inc. v. Community College District No. 508 green
illappct · 2015
1 sentence

2016To plead a cause of action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege facts that would support “the conclusion that it conferred a benefit upon the defendant which the defendant has unjustly retained in violation of fundamental principles of equity and good conscience.” Karen Stavins Enterprises, Inc. v. Community College District No. 508, 2015 IL App (1st) 150356, ¶ 7 .

12016–2016

Where else courts name it

CA 12 (1982–2025) IL 8 (1997–2019) NY 6 (1975–2023) TX 6 (1980–2021) AZ 3 (1981–1995) GA 3 (1992–2023) AL 3 (1997–2017) PA 3 (1943–2007) FL 3 (1985–1998) OH 2 (2004–2007) MO 2 (1969–2019) WA 2 (2012–2024) LA 2 (1982–1991)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check