protection afforded doctrine (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

protection afforded doctrine in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2006 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Szabogreen
ill · 1986 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987(People v. Lego (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 , 507 N.E.2d 800 ; see also People v. Szabo (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 83, 92 , 497 N.E.2d 995 .) Far from reflecting the mental processes of the attorney in preparation of defendant’s case, the notes are largely recordations of a witness’ statements to counsel pertaining to “time tests” being taken.

1987(People v. Lego (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 , 507 N.E.2d 800 ; see also People v. Szabo (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 83, 92 , 497 N.E.2d 995 .) Far from reflecting the mental processes of the attorney in preparation of defendant’s case, the notes are largely recordations of a witness’ statements to counsel pertaining to “time tests” being taken.

11
Bartimus v. Paxton Community Hospitalgreen
illappct · 1983 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
1 sentence

1985See, inter alia, Bartimus v. Paxton Community Hospital (1983), 120 Ill.

11

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 (18)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Lego green
ill · 1987
2 sentences

2006Lego, 116 Ill. 2d at 339 .

2006Lego, 116 Ill. 2d at 339 .

31987–2006
Estelle v. Smith green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

1988Ed. 2d at 368 , 101 S. Ct. at 1873 .) The protection afforded by the privilege is “as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.” 451 U.S. at 467 , 68 L.

1988Ed. 2d at 368 , 101 S. Ct. at 1873 .) The protection afforded by the privilege is “as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.” 451 U.S. at 467 , 68 L.

11988–1988
People v. Pastorino green
ill · 1982
2 sentences

1987Although the work-product rule was not advanced below and, therefore, is waived (see People v. Pastorino (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 178, 192 , 435 N.E.2d 1144 ), nevertheless, we find the notes here clearly do not contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the attorney and do not fall within the scope of the protection afforded by the rule.

1987Although the work-product rule was not advanced below and, therefore, is waived (see People v. Pastorino (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 178, 192 , 435 N.E.2d 1144 ), nevertheless, we find the notes here clearly do not contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the attorney and do not fall within the scope of the protection afforded by the rule.

11987–1987
Chamness v. Odum green
illappct · 1979
1 sentence

1985App. 3d 98 , 399 N.E.2d 238 .) With modern educational opportunities and means of travel, the focus of the protection afforded by the rule is on the facilities and testing mediums available to the local physicians.

11985–1985
Williamson v. United States green
· 1908
2 sentences

1977(Williamson v. United States (1908), 207 U.S. 425 , 52 L.

1977(Williamson v. United States (1908), 207 U.S. 425 , 52 L.

11977–1977
Giberson v. Ford Motor Company green
mo · 1974
1 sentence

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Darryl v. Ford Motor Company green
tex · 1969
1 sentence

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Moss v. Polyco, Inc. green
okla · 1974
1 sentence

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Winnett v. Winnett green
ill · 1974
2 sentences

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Elmore v. American Motors Corp. green
cal · 1969
2 sentences

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. green
kyctapphigh · 1973
1 sentence

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Howes v. Hansen green
wis · 1972
2 sentences

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Mieher v. Brown green
ill · 1973
1 sentence

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Mieher v. Brown green
illappct · 1972
2 sentences

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

1974In recent years the protection afforded by the doctrine of strict Mabff'ity in tort has been extended to persons other than users and consumers, most notably to bystanders, in Illinois (Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill.2d 7 , 310 N.E.2d 1 ; Mieher v. Brown, 3 Ill.App.3d 802 , 278 N.E.2d 869 , rev’d on other grounds, 54 Ill.2d 539 , 278 M.E.2d 869) and in other jurisdictions (e.g., Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. (Ky. 1973), 502 S.W.2d 66 ; Giberson v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo. 1974), 504 S.W.2d 8 ; Moss v. Polyco, Inc. (Okla. 1974), 522 P.2d 622 ; Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969), 70 Cal.2d

11974–1974
Williams' Administratrix v. Church Home for Females & Infirmary for Sick neutral
kyctapphigh · 1928
1 sentence

1945In the Williams’ case ( 223 Ky. 355 ) the court answered the argument of plaintiff that procurement of indemnity insurance by a charitable institution is sufficient of itself to make the institution liable, on the ground that no diversion of trust funds would result, by quoting from Levy v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 171 , 239 Pac. 1100 , as follows: “If a liability may be created or an exemption waived by the acts of the trustee of a charity in- procuring and accepting the promise of a third person to make good the losses following such liability or waiver, and the trustee thus allowed to a

11945–1945
Stedem Pro Ami v. Jewish Mem. Hospital Ass'n of K.C. green
moctapp · 1945
1 sentence

1945No authorities holding in accordance with the argument of counsel in this behalf have been called to our attention; and it is our opinion that the theory that a charity, not otherwise subject to liability, may become liable by reason of the procurement by those administering it of indemnity insurance cannot be supported in principle.” In the latest case brought to our attention, Stedem v. Jewish Memorial Hospital Ass’n of Kansas City, supra, the court had under consideration a policy similar to the one before us.

11945–1945
In Re Fisher neutral
calctapp · 1925
1 sentence

1945In the Williams’ case ( 223 Ky. 355 ) the court answered the argument of plaintiff that procurement of indemnity insurance by a charitable institution is sufficient of itself to make the institution liable, on the ground that no diversion of trust funds would result, by quoting from Levy v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 171 , 239 Pac. 1100 , as follows: “If a liability may be created or an exemption waived by the acts of the trustee of a charity in- procuring and accepting the promise of a third person to make good the losses following such liability or waiver, and the trustee thus allowed to a

11945–1945
Levy v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1925
1 sentence

1945In the Williams’ case ( 223 Ky. 355 ) the court answered the argument of plaintiff that procurement of indemnity insurance by a charitable institution is sufficient of itself to make the institution liable, on the ground that no diversion of trust funds would result, by quoting from Levy v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 171 , 239 Pac. 1100 , as follows: “If a liability may be created or an exemption waived by the acts of the trustee of a charity in- procuring and accepting the promise of a third person to make good the losses following such liability or waiver, and the trustee thus allowed to a

11945–1945

Where else courts name it

PA 22 (1966–2026) CT 13 (1963–2026) CA 11 (1958–2015) IL 8 (1945–2006) VA 7 (1987–2015) FL 7 (1987–2022) MO 6 (1977–2015) SC 6 (1881–2025) NY 5 (1968–1993) LA 5 (1975–2002) TX 5 (1991–2000) MD 4 (1964–1996) ND 4 (1968–1994) OR 4 (1991–2006) AL 4 (1988–2007) NM 4 (1981–1994) IA 4 (1987–2006) AK 3 (1981–1984) TN 3 (1981–2000) IN 3 (1987–2002) CO 3 (2006–2020) NC 3 (1979–1994) OK 2 (1927–1987) VT 2 (1997–2015) WY 2 (1993–2000) SD 2 (1961–1984) WA 2 (1981–2015) KS 2 (1974–1982) AZ 2 (1966–1988) MN 2 (1993–2007) MS 2 (1967–1984)

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