8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCarthy v. Kunickigreen2 sentences2025Contributory negligence is defined as “a lack of due care for one’s own safety as measured by an objective reasonable person standard.” McCarthy v. Kunicki, 355 Ill. 2013“Contributory negligence is defined as a lack of due care for one’s own safety as measured by an objective reasonable person standard.” McCarthy v. Kunicki, 355 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc.green2 sentences1998Rather, the court stressed that such a person should be held only to the exercise of such care as he or she was capable of exercising, “i.e., the standard of care of a person of like mental capacity under similar circumstances.” See Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc., 119 N.C. 1998Rather, the court stressed that such a person should be held only to the exercise of such care as he or she was capable of exercising, *914 " i.e., the standard of care of a person of like mental capacity under similar circumstances." See Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc., 119 N.C.App. 115, 120 , 457 S.E.2d 875, 879 (1995) (and cases cited therein). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Watsongreen1 sentence2026See Watson, 2021 IL App (1st) 180034, ¶¶ 40-43, 52 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Peter Saundersgreen1 sentence2018United States v. Clemens , 738 F.3d 1 , 10-11 (1st Cir. 2013) (discussing the disagreements among the courts of appeals and concluding that the objective-speaker test continued to be good law post- Black ); accord United States v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 , 913 n.6 (7th Cir. 1999). 3 The Court left open the possibility, but declined to rule, that recklessness would also satisfy the mental-state requirement under the facts of the case. | 1 | 1 |
CNA Insurance v. McGinnisgreen2 sentences1994See CNA Insurance Co. v. McGinnis (1984), 282 Ark. 90 , 666 S.W.2d 689 . 1994See CNA Insurance Co. v. McGinnis (1984), 282 Ark. 90 , 666 S.W.2d 689 . | 1 | 1 |
Horace Mann Insurance v. Foregreen1 sentence1994Ala. 1987), 652 F. Supp. 1177 ; but see Davis, 612 So. 2d at 461-62 (repudiating and rejecting McIntyre’s embrace of the subjective-intent test as an erroneous interpretation/ prediction of Alabama law); Fore, 785 F. Supp. at 949-54 (same).) The third approach is the objective reasonable person standard, which inquires whether a reasonable person would have foreseen that his action would cause harm. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Davisgreen1 sentence1994Ala. 1987), 652 F. Supp. 1177 ; but see Davis, 612 So. 2d at 461-62 (repudiating and rejecting McIntyre’s embrace of the subjective-intent test as an erroneous interpretation/ prediction of Alabama law); Fore, 785 F. Supp. at 949-54 (same).) The third approach is the objective reasonable person standard, which inquires whether a reasonable person would have foreseen that his action would cause harm. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Clemens
green
1 sentence2018United States v. Clemens , 738 F.3d 1 , 10-11 (1st Cir. 2013) (discussing the disagreements among the courts of appeals and concluding that the objective-speaker test continued to be good law post- Black ); accord United States v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 , 913 n.6 (7th Cir. 1999). 3 The Court left open the possibility, but declined to rule, that recklessness would also satisfy the mental-state requirement under the facts of the case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Reid v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
green
1 sentence2005Reid v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 14 Ill. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Auto Mutual Insurance v. McIntyre Ex Rel. Buck
green
1 sentence1994Ala. 1987), 652 F. Supp. 1177 ; but see Davis, 612 So. 2d at 461-62 (repudiating and rejecting McIntyre’s embrace of the subjective-intent test as an erroneous interpretation/ prediction of Alabama law); Fore, 785 F. Supp. at 949-54 (same).) The third approach is the objective reasonable person standard, which inquires whether a reasonable person would have foreseen that his action would cause harm. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.