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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1966–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lipinski v. Martin J. Kelly Oldsmobile, Inc.green2 sentences2006Lipinski, 325 Ill. 2006Lipinski, 325 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Rubin v. Marshall Field & Co.green1 sentence2024Rubin v. Marshall Field & Co., 232 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf
green
2 sentences2017The court recognized that the “[t]he purpose of the warranty is to protect purchasers’ expectations by holding builder-vendors accountable.” Id. (citing Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171 (1982)). 2017The court recognized that the “[t]he purpose of the warranty is to protect purchasers’ expectations by holding builder-vendors accountable.” Id. (citing Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171 (1982)). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Minton v. the Richards Group of Chicago
green
2 sentences2017On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the implied warranty of habitability “applies to the subcontractors of the builder-vendor where the builder-vendor is dissolved and shows no assets.” Id. ¶ 54 The Minton court reversed and permitted the implied warranty claim against the subcontractor. 2017On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the implied warranty of habitability “applies to the subcontractors of the builder-vendor where the builder-vendor is dissolved and shows no assets.” Id. ¶ 54 The Minton court reversed and permitted the implied warranty claim against the subcontractor. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Walker v. Shults Auto Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025However, when I came back, I understood that the order was already entered.” Plaintiff argued that defendant’s response failed to acknowledge that plaintiff’s attempts to amend the complaint began when he was acting pro se and that pro se plaintiffs should be given considerable leeway. ¶ 25 Plaintiff argued further that the proposed second amended complaint made only two substantive changes—adding Walker as a party and repleading the implied warranty claim under the MMWA—and, thus, defendant would not be prejudiced or surprised by the amendments. -6- 2025 IL App (2d) 240459 ¶ 26 The hearing on | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Suvada v. White Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1966The trial court dismissed the implied warranty claim against the manufacturer of the component part, who was not in privity with the plaintiff, but the Appellate Court reversed that order (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 51 Ill App2d 318, 201 NE2d 313 ). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.