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 1982–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2022In weighing these factors, “[w]e may take judicial notice of the magnitude of the CTA’s operations.” Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010). 2021In - 14 - No. 1-20-0895 weighing these factors, “[w]e may take judicial notice of the magnitude of the CTA’s operations.” Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215, 234-35 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jenningsgreen1 sentence2019See People v. Jennings, 296 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Willis
green
2 sentences2004Willis, 344 Ill. 2004Willis, 344 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Bujnowski v. Birchland, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Bujnowski, 2015 IL App (2d) 140578, ¶ 55 . 2021In other words, where a condition is open and obvious and no exception applies, the first two factors of the four-factor test for the existence of a legal duty (the reasonable foreseeability of the injury and the likelihood of the injury) establish the absence of a duty, and the last two factors (the - 19 - 2021 IL App (2d) 200660-U magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant), “ ‘however strongly they militated in favor of a duty, cannot outweigh the first two factors.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 18 (quoting Bujnowsk | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sollami v. Eaton
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 17 . ¶ 33 The court quickly disposed of the last two factors. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015This rule seems to excuse both the failure to warn and the failure to take precautions in relation to the condition on the land, as long as the danger was open and obvious to the plaintiff.” (Emphasis added.) Blue, 215 Ill. 2d at 106 . ¶ 39 This passage all but read section 343A to bar any duty whenever the risk is open and obvious and no exception applies–regardless of the import of the last two factors of the traditional four-factor test. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence1982App. 3d 609 , 616 — 17, 378 N.E.2d 1318 , “any discrepancies or inaccuracies or omissions as to facial hair *** or some other facial characteristic *** or some other physical characteristic such as height or weight *** are not fatal *** but simply go to the weight of the identification testimony and are to be evaluated by the trier of fact.” The last two factors enunciated in Biggers are the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.