8 Illinois opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rivard v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2green2 sentences2000Courts that employ the legislative intent analysis presume an application of prospectivity; however, the presumption is rebuttable by either the statute's "express language or necessary implication." Rivard v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, 122 Ill.2d 303, 309 , 119 Ill.Dec. 336 , 522 N.E.2d 1195 (1988). 2000Courts that employ the legislative intent analysis presume an application of prospectivity; however, the presumption is rebuttable by either the statute’s “express language or necessary implication.” Rivard v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, 122 Ill. 2d 303, 309 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collectorgreen2 sentences2006See Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill.2d 27 , 255 Ill.Dec. 482 , 749 N.E.2d 964 (2001). 2006See Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill.2d 27 , 255 Ill.Dec. 482 , 749 N.E.2d 964 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Lonigro v. Lockettgreen1 sentence1996App. 3d at 777 ), the legislative intent is to bar double recovery by both a claimant and the Fund (Lonigro v. Lockett, 253 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
green
2 sentences2006The plaintiff argues that because the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected the “vested rights” approach to retroactivity and has adopted the legislative intent analysis announced by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 , 128 L. 2006The plaintiff argues that because the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected the “vested rights” approach to retroactivity and has adopted the legislative intent analysis announced by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 , 128 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Digirolamo
green
2 sentences2000This court, having seemingly eschewed the legislative intent analysis for the vested rights approach in Armstead, nevertheless resurrected the legislative intent analysis just one year later in People v. Digirolamo, 179 Ill.2d 24 , 227 Ill.Dec. 779 , 688 N.E.2d 116 (1997). 2000This court, having seemingly eschewed the legislative intent analysis for the vested rights approach in Arm-stead, nevertheless resurrected the legislative intent analysis just one year later in People v. Digirolamo, 179 Ill. 2d 24 (1997). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Sawyer Realty Group, Inc. v. Jarvis Corp.
green
2 sentences2000(Sawyer, supra, 432 N.E.2d at 853 , 59 Ill. 2000(Sawyer, supra, 432 N.E.2d at 853 , 59 Ill. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Urban v. Loham
green
1 sentence1993In Urban v. Loham, the court said that “a plaintiff who makes a claim under his uninsured motorist coverage is deemed to have exhausted his rights under section 546(a), regardless of the amount he actually receives.” (Emphasis added.) (Urban, 227 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Reynolds v. City of Tuscola
green
1 sentence1973(Reynolds v. City of Tuscola (1971), 48 Ill.2d 339, 342 .) The language of these sections does not indicate a legislative intent to bar a party sued by the public entity from asserting a counterclaim which arose out of the occurrence upon which the complaint of such entity is based. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.