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.
57 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bullgreen2 sentences2011Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 , 797 N.E.2d at 638 ; People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 210 , 705 N.E.2d 824, 839 (1998). 2011Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 , 797 N.E.2d at 638 ; People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 210 , 705 N.E.2d 824, 839 (1998). | 4 | 4 |
Worm v. American Cyanamid Companygreen2 sentences2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli 2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli | 2 | 4 |
Charles H. Kuiper, Sr., Mae E. Kuiper, and Charles A. Kuiper, Jr., D/B/A Charles H. Kuiper & Son Farms v. American Cyanamid Companygreen2 sentences2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli 2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli | 2 | 4 |
Devyn Corporation v. The City of Bloomington, Illinoisgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Devyn Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 2015 IL App (4th) 140819, ¶ 73 (equitable accounting); Kopchar v. City of Chicago, 395 Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Devyn Corp. v. City of Bloomington , 2015 IL App (4th) 140819 , ¶ 73, 395 Ill.Dec. 510 , 38 N.E.3d 1266 (equitable accounting); Kopchar v. City of Chicago , 395 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2019App. 3d 783, 789 (2010); see Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984) (“The absence of an adequate remedy at law is a precondition to any form of equitable relief.”). ¶ 32 Reflecting its deep and well-understood roots in the law of equity, Illinois courts have faithfully applied the adequacy rule across the spectrum of equitable claims. 2018App. 3d 783 , 789, 351 Ill.Dec. 641 , 952 N.E.2d 14 (2010) ; see Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc. , 749 F.2d 380 , 386 (7th Cir. 1984) ("The absence of an adequate remedy at law is a precondition to any form of equitable relief."). ¶ 32 Reflecting its deep and well-understood roots in the law of equity, Illinois courts have faithfully applied the adequacy rule across the spectrum of equitable claims. | 2 | 2 |
Robert Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School Districtgreen2 sentences2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates 2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates | 2 | 2 |
Barbara J. Key v. Gillette Companygreen2 sentences2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates 2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates | 2 | 2 |
Frances Unger, William Patterson, Lead Gordon Ellis, Lead v. Amedisys Inc.green2 sentences2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates 2016See Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation.”); Key v. Gillette Co., 782 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy “requirement is particularly important because the due -9- No. 1-14-3733 process rights of absentee class members may be implicated if they are bound by a final judgment in a suit where they were inadequately represented by the named plaintiff”); Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 , 484 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The adequacy requirement mandates | 2 | 2 |
Papas v. The Upjohn Companygreen2 sentences2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli 2002See Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656, 666 (7th Cir. 1997) (off-label statement that essentially repeated label warnings is preempted by FIFRA); Worm, 5 F.3d at 748-49 (claims based on representations that repeated those made on labels and literature distributed with herbicide are preempted by FIFRA); Papas, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (claims challenging the adequacy of warnings of materials other than the label or packaging of a chemical necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and are, therefore, preempted by FIFRA; state law claims for breach of an impli | 2 | 2 |
Kim Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002); Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. Dowelanco, 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 1997); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir. 1993); King v. E.I. 2002See, e.g. , Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc. , 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002); Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. Dowelanco , 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co. , 131 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 1997); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co. , 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir. 1993); King v. E.I. | 2 | 2 |
Proctor v. Davisgreen2 sentences2020Or, as our supreme court has stated, “ ‘[d]octors who have not been sufficiently warned of the harmful effects of a drug cannot be considered ‘learned intermediaries’ and the adequacy of warnings is a question of fact, not law, for the jury to determine ***.’ ” Id. (emphasis added.) (quoting Proctor v. Davis, 291 Ill. 2002The court said, “Doctors who have not been sufficiently warned of the harmful effects of a drug cannot be considered ‘learned intermediaries’ and the adequacy of warnings is a question of fact, not law, for the jury to determine, as it did in the instant case.” (Emphasis added.) Proctor, 291 Ill. | 1 | 4 |
Palmer v. Avco Distributing Corp.green2 sentences2011Palmer v. Avco Distributing Corp., 82 Ill.2d 211, 221 , 45 Ill.Dec. 377 , 412 N.E.2d 959 (1980). 2011Palmer v. Avco Distributing Corp., 82 Ill.2d 211, 221 , 45 Ill.Dec. 377 , 412 N.E.2d 959 (1980). | 1 | 4 |
Chandler v. Illinois Central Railroadgreen2 sentences2014Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 342-43 , 798 N.E.2d 724, 730 (2003). 25 Chandler found that the record led to the conclusion "that in 1962 the Commission duly investigated the crossing and the adequacy of the warning devices." (Emphasis added.) Chandler, 207 Ill. 2d at 343 , 798 N.E.2d at 730 . 2014Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 342-43 , 798 N.E.2d 724, 730 (2003). 25 Chandler found that the record led to the conclusion "that in 1962 the Commission duly investigated the crossing and the adequacy of the warning devices." (Emphasis added.) Chandler, 207 Ill. 2d at 343 , 798 N.E.2d at 730 . | 1 | 3 |
Kopchar v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Devyn Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 2015 IL App (4th) 140819, ¶ 73 (equitable accounting); Kopchar v. City of Chicago, 395 Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Devyn Corp. v. City of Bloomington , 2015 IL App (4th) 140819 , ¶ 73, 395 Ill.Dec. 510 , 38 N.E.3d 1266 (equitable accounting); Kopchar v. City of Chicago , 395 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Northern Trust Co. v. Upjohn Co.green2 sentences2011Northern Trust Co. v. Upjohn Co., 213 Ill.App.3d 390, 401 , 157 Ill.Dec. 566 , 572 N.E.2d 1030 (1991). 2011Northern Trust Co. v. Upjohn Co., 213 Ill.App.3d 390, 401 , 157 Ill.Dec. 566 , 572 N.E.2d 1030 (1991). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wegielnikgreen2 sentences2001As long as the defendant can comprehend that he is being asked to take a test (see People v. Wegielnik, 152 Ill.2d 418, 432 , 178 Ill. 2001As long as the defendant can comprehend that he is being asked to take a test (see People v. Wegielnik, 152 Ill. 2d 418, 432 (1992)) and as long as the pretest warnings are objectively accurate and informative (see Englebrecht, 225 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
De Bouse v. Bayer AGgreen1 sentence2025Here, a merits-based analysis and conclusive determination is unnecessary, for it is -8- No. 1-24-1034 not directly relevant to the adequacy requirement, or the commonality and predominance requirements. ¶ 28 We acknowledge that a class representative “cannot adequately represent a class when the representative does not state a valid cause of action.” De Bouse v. Bayer, 235 Ill. 2d 544, 560 (2009); see Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 73 (2007) (class certification reversed because the allegedly deceptive product name was nothing more than puffery and could not form the ba | 1 | 1 |
Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp.green1 sentence2025Here, a merits-based analysis and conclusive determination is unnecessary, for it is -8- No. 1-24-1034 not directly relevant to the adequacy requirement, or the commonality and predominance requirements. ¶ 28 We acknowledge that a class representative “cannot adequately represent a class when the representative does not state a valid cause of action.” De Bouse v. Bayer, 235 Ill. 2d 544, 560 (2009); see Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 73 (2007) (class certification reversed because the allegedly deceptive product name was nothing more than puffery and could not form the ba | 1 | 1 |
| CC Disposal, Inc. v. Veolia ES Valley View Landfill, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Metcalfegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baltus v. Weaver Division of Kidde & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Merchants Nat. Bk. v. EJ & E. RY. CO.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dion v. Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvaniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pickettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Malone v. American Cyanamid Co.green2 sentences2002But see Malone v. American Cyanamid Co., 271 Ill. 2002But see Malone v. American Cyanamid Co., 271 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Strickland
green
2 sentences2011People v. Strickland, 363 Ill. 2011People v. Strickland, 363 Ill. | 4 | 2009–2011 |
People v. Moore
green
2 sentences2011Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 , 797 N.E.2d at 638 ; People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 210 , 705 N.E.2d 824, 839 (1998). 2011Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 , 797 N.E.2d at 638 ; People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 210 , 705 N.E.2d 824, 839 (1998). | 4 | 2009–2011 |
Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences2003Thus, EJ&E is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the adequacy of the warning devices installed at the 22nd Street crossing.” Espinoza , 165 Ill. 2d at 124 . 2003Thus, EJ&E is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the adequacy of the warning devices installed at the 22nd Street crossing.” Espinoza, 165 Ill. 2d at 124 . | 4 | 2002–2003 |
Mabry v. Village of Glenwood
green
2 sentences2019Mabry v. Village of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 , ¶ 12; 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016). ¶ 11 Analysis ¶ 12 Impact of Appellate Court’s Decertification of Class ¶ 13 In Byer Clinic, 2016 IL App (1st) 143733 , this court found the purported class representative, Byer Clinic, failed to meet the adequacy requirement. 2018Mabry v. Village of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 , ¶ 12; 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016). ¶ 11 Analysis ¶ 12 Impact of Appellate Court’s Decertification of Class ¶ 13 In Byer Clinic, 2016 IL App (1st) 143733 , this court found the purported class representative, Byer Clinic, failed to meet the adequacy requirement. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Byer Clinic and Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Kapraun
green
2 sentences2019Mabry v. Village of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 , ¶ 12; 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016). ¶ 11 Analysis ¶ 12 Impact of Appellate Court’s Decertification of Class ¶ 13 In Byer Clinic, 2016 IL App (1st) 143733 , this court found the purported class representative, Byer Clinic, failed to meet the adequacy requirement. 2018Mabry v. Village of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 , ¶ 12; 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016). ¶ 11 Analysis ¶ 12 Impact of Appellate Court’s Decertification of Class ¶ 13 In Byer Clinic, 2016 IL App (1st) 143733 , this court found the purported class representative, Byer Clinic, failed to meet the adequacy requirement. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Nathan Kimmel, Inc. Nathan Kimmel, LLC Knf Corp., Formerly Known as Kennedy Nylon Film Corp. v. Dowelanco
green
2 sentences2002See, e.g., Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002); Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. Dowelanco, 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co., 131 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 1997); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir. 1993); King v. E.I. 2002See, e.g. , Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc. , 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002); Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. Dowelanco , 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); Kuiper v. American Cyanamid Co. , 131 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 1997); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co. , 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir. 1993); King v. E.I. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
green
2 sentences2001Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 123 L. 2001Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 670 , 123 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Tongate v. Wyeth Laboratories
green
2 sentences1997Tongate, 220 Ill.App.3d at 963 , 162 Ill.Dec. 801 , 580 N.E.2d 1220 ; Batteast v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 137 Ill.2d 175, 192-94 , 148 Ill.Dec. 13 , 560 N.E.2d 315 (1990). 1997Tongate, 220 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.
green
2 sentences1993(Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 26, 34-35 , 402 N.E.2d 194, 198 ; see also Baltus v. Weaver Division of Kidde & Co. (1990), 199 Ill. 1993(Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 26, 34-35 , 402 N.E.2d 194, 198 ; see also Baltus v. Weaver Division of Kidde & Co. (1990), 199 Ill. | 2 | 1980–1993 |
Lawson v. G. D. Searle & Co.
green
2 sentences1988Searle & Co. (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 543, 550-51 , 356 N.E.2d 779, 783 .) The determination as to the adequacy of warnings that are included in a package insert of a drug distributed to the medical profession is a question that is within the province of the trier of fact. 1988Searle & Co. (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 543, 550-51 , 356 N.E.2d 779, 783 .) The determination as to the adequacy of warnings that are included in a package insert of a drug distributed to the medical profession is a question that is within the province of the trier of fact. | 2 | 1980–1988 |
People v. Krankel
green
1 sentence2026Defendant argues the trial court erred by not - 11 - conducting a neutral and nonadversarial inquiry pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Ayres green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Brennan v. Wisconsin Central Limited green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Engelbrecht green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Batteast v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Brendel v. Hustava green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Huff v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Renfro v. Allied Industrial Equipment Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Bell v. Lincoln Electric Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Stack green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Turner v. Murray green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Tankersley v. Peabody Coal Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Blazina v. Blazina green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Ruffiner v. Material Service Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| United States v. Warren James Bland green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| George S. Krasnov v. Brendan Dinan green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| The People v. Henry green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Rucker v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Jenkins green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Willie Salt Coyote v. United States green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| People v. Swift neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Steel v. State green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Jones v. State green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.