56 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frank's Maintenance & Engineering, Inc. v. C. A. Rorerts Co.green2 sentences2006Roberts Co., 86 Ill.App.3d 980, 989 , 42 Ill.Dec. 25 , 408 N.E.2d 403 (1980). 2006Roberts Co., 86 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals, Inc.green2 sentences2009App. 3d 141, 150 , 669 N.E.2d 1192, 1199 (1996) (the contract called for recovery based on the relative culpability of the parties), aff’d on other grounds, 178 Ill. 2d 540 , 687 N.E.2d 968 (1997); see also Hahn v. Norfolk & Western Ry. 2009App. 3d 141, 150 , 669 N.E.2d 1192, 1199 (1996) (the contract called for recovery based on the relative culpability of the parties), aff’d on other grounds, 178 Ill. 2d 540 , 687 N.E.2d 968 (1997); see also Hahn v. Norfolk & Western Ry. | 2 | 3 |
Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.green2 sentences2006In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 86 , 435 N.E.2d at 450 ) — “property damage” meaning damage to property other than the defective product itself (Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 21, 42 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 54-55 (1997)). 2006In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 86 , 435 N.E.2d at 450 ) — “property damage” meaning damage to property other than the defective product itself (Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 21, 42 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 54-55 (1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Zimmerman v. Northfield Real Estate, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Zimmerman v. Northfield Real Estate, Inc., 156 Ill. 2005See Zimmerman v. Northfield Real Estate, Inc., 156 Ill.App.3d 154 , 109 Ill.Dec. 541 , 510 N.E.2d 409 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
Prudential Insurance Co. v. Van Matregreen2 sentences2004See Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Van Matre , 158 Ill. 2004See Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Van Matre, 158 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2020The Board rejected City Colleges waiver argument finding that the Union did not clearly and unmistakably waive its right to arbitration. ¶ 44 “The contractual waiver of a statutory right in a labor agreement must be ‘clear and unmistakable.’ ” State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 373 Ill. 2018App. 3d 242 , 255, 311 Ill.Dec. 600 , 869 N.E.2d 274 (2007) (stating that a labor agreement can contain a contractual waiver of a statutory right if the waiver is unmistakable and clear). | 1 | 2 |
Afscme v. Islrbgreen2 sentences1991See AFSCME, 190 Ill. 1990App. 3d 259 , 546 N.E.2d 687 (interpreting the effect of a zipper clause under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act).) Thus, for a contractual waiver to be found, the language of the agreement in light of any evidence presented on bargaining history must present “a clear and unmistakable” agreement to waive midterm bargaining. | 1 | 2 |
Buchalo v. Country Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2019See Buchalo v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 83 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
City of Evanston v. Create, Inc.green1 sentence2018City of Evanston v. Create, Inc., 85 Ill. 2d 101, 114 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 770917green1 sentence2016But the exculpatory clauses (setting aside the question of whether they are effectual in these circumstances) pertain to liability, not jurisdiction. “[J]urisdiction and liability are two separate inquiries.” Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 944 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Gramercy Advisors LLC v. Lowery, No. 01-14-00904-CV, 2015 WL 3981610 , at *12 (Tex. Ct. App. June 30, 2015) (by invoking a contractual clause in which the plaintiffs disclaimed reliance on Gramercy’s tax advice, the Gramercy defendants “conflate liability wit | 1 | 1 |
Colonial Penn Insurance v. Guzorekgreen1 sentence2015See Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 669 (Ind. 1997) (holding, “in the case of an unambiguous policy requiring notice to trigger ‘automatic’ coverage of additional cars, that provision is enforceable and can be invoked to deny coverage if notice is not given”); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Winter, 469 N.W.2d 314, 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (adhering to the plain reading of an insurance policy with a clear notice requirement for coverage on a newly acquired vehicle). | 1 | 1 |
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Wintergreen1 sentence2015See Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 669 (Ind. 1997) (holding, “in the case of an unambiguous policy requiring notice to trigger ‘automatic’ coverage of additional cars, that provision is enforceable and can be invoked to deny coverage if notice is not given”); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Winter, 469 N.W.2d 314, 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (adhering to the plain reading of an insurance policy with a clear notice requirement for coverage on a newly acquired vehicle). | 1 | 1 |
Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals (Chicago), Inc.green2 sentences2009App. 3d 1002, 1006 , 830 N.E.2d 636, 641-42 (2005) (citing Herington and Liccardi for purposes of a contractual waiver of the Kotecki damage cap {Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991))); Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals (Chicago), Inc., 283 Ill. 2009App. 3d 141, 150 , 669 N.E.2d 1192, 1199 (1996) (the contract called for recovery based on the relative culpability of the parties), aff’d on other grounds, 178 Ill. 2d 540 , 687 N.E.2d 968 (1997); see also Hahn v. Norfolk & Western Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Willis v. Kiferbaum Construction Corp.green1 sentence2009App. 3d 1002, 1006 , 830 N.E.2d 636, 641-42 (2005) (citing Herington and Liccardi for purposes of a contractual waiver of the Kotecki damage cap {Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991))); Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals (Chicago), Inc., 283 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Haight v. Aldridge Elec. Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Local Union 1395, International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beth Israel Hospital v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fry v. George Elkins Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Travelers Insurance Company v. PINKERTON-HAYS LUMBER COMPANYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Liberty National Bank of Chicago v. Newberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Marcucci
green
2 sentences1991Any attempt to prove the existence of a contract not to revoke at such proceedings is irrelevant since it is tantamount to an attempt to prove a contractual claim against the estate before the appointment of an indispensable party, the executor.” 54 Ill. 2d at 270 , 296 N.E.2d at 851 . 1991Any attempt to prove the existence of a contract not to revoke at such proceedings is irrelevant since it is tantamount to an attempt to prove a contractual claim against the estate before the appointment of an indispensable party, the executor.” 54 Ill. 2d at 270 , 296 N.E.2d at 851 . | 4 | 1975–1991 |
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2007The contractual waiver of a statutory right in a labor agreement must be “clear and unmistakable.” American, 274 Ill. 2007The contractual waiver of a statu- tory right in a labor agreement must be "clear and unmistakable." American, 274 Ill. | 3 | 2007–2020 |
Anderson Electric, Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp.
green
2 sentences1991The court has stated: “A plaintiff seeking to recover purely economic losses due to defeated expectations of a commercial bargain cannot recover in tort, regardless of the plaintiff’s inability to recover under an action in contract.” (Emphasis added.) (Anderson Electric, Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp. (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 146, 153 .) Thus, while Moorman may apply where the plaintiff has no direct contractual relationship with the defendant (Anderson, 115 Ill. 2d at 148 ) or where the plaintiff’s contractual claim is barred by the statute of limitations (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 92-94 ), the su 1991The court has stated: “A plaintiff seeking to recover purely economic losses due to defeated expectations of a commercial bargain cannot recover in tort, regardless of the plaintiff’s inability to recover under an action in contract.” (Emphasis added.) (Anderson Electric, Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp. (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 146, 153 .) Thus, while Moorman may apply where the plaintiff has no direct contractual relationship with the defendant (Anderson, 115 Ill. 2d at 148 ) or where the plaintiff’s contractual claim is barred by the statute of limitations (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 92-94 ), the su | 3 | 1991–2006 |
Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co.
green
2 sentences2006In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 86 , 435 N.E.2d at 450 ) — “property damage” meaning damage to property other than the defective product itself (Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 21, 42 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 54-55 (1997)). 2006In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 86 , 435 N.E.2d at 450 ) — “property damage” meaning damage to property other than the defective product itself (Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 21, 42 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 54-55 (1997)). | 3 | 1991–2006 |
Stark Excavating v. Carter Construction Services
green
2 sentences2017As a discussion of two cases demonstrates, the answer is that a claim for quantum meruit lies when the work that the plaintiff performed was wholly beyond the subject matter of the contract that existed between the parties. ¶ 40 The first case is the one on which Archon principally relies, Stark, 2012 IL App (4th) 110357 . 2017As a discussion of two cases demonstrates, the answer is that a claim for quantum meruit lies when the work that the plaintiff performed was wholly beyond the subject matter of the contract that existed between the parties. ¶ 40 The first case is the one on which Archon principally relies, Stark, 2012 IL App (4th) 110357 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co.
green
2 sentences2011And that impossibility was as a result of the conduct of the defendants." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39 Impossibility of performance is a contractual doctrine excusing performance "where performance is rendered objectively impossible due to destruction of the subject matter of the contract or by operation of law." YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC, 403 Ill.App.3d 1, 6 , 342 Ill.Dec. 879 , 933 N.E.2d 860 (2010) (citing Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 187 , 64 N.E.2d 477 (1945)). 2011And that impossibility was as a result of the conduct of the defendants." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39 Impossibility of performance is a contractual doctrine excusing performance "where performance is rendered objectively impossible due to destruction of the subject matter of the contract or by operation of law." YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC, 403 Ill.App.3d 1, 6 , 342 Ill.Dec. 879 , 933 N.E.2d 860 (2010) (citing Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 187 , 64 N.E.2d 477 (1945)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC
green
2 sentences2011And that impossibility was as a result of the conduct of the defendants." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39 Impossibility of performance is a contractual doctrine excusing performance "where performance is rendered objectively impossible due to destruction of the subject matter of the contract or by operation of law." YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC, 403 Ill.App.3d 1, 6 , 342 Ill.Dec. 879 , 933 N.E.2d 860 (2010) (citing Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 187 , 64 N.E.2d 477 (1945)). 2011And that impossibility was as a result of the conduct of the defendants." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39 Impossibility of performance is a contractual doctrine excusing performance "where performance is rendered objectively impossible due to destruction of the subject matter of the contract or by operation of law." YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC, 403 Ill.App.3d 1, 6 , 342 Ill.Dec. 879 , 933 N.E.2d 860 (2010) (citing Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 187 , 64 N.E.2d 477 (1945)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Commission
green
2 sentences2007Moreover, with the contractual clause being embedded in a boilerplate agreement, its significance was “greatly reduced because of the inequality in the parties’ bargaining power.” Williams, 139 Ill. 2d at 72 . 2007Moreover, with the contractual clause being embedded in a boilerplate agreement, its significance was “greatly reduced because of the inequality in the parties’ bargaining power.” Williams, 139 Ill. 2d at 72 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
StarNet Insurance Company v. Adam Ruprecht
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 347-48 . ¶ 46 Here, there is neither a contract nor privity between ACA and Builder. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2024“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” People v. Brown, 2020 IL 125203, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Berger v. Matthews
green
1 sentence2024Conversely, fees such as those at issue in Barrington Bank’s motion to tax costs are awarded to prevailing parties (see 735 ILCS 5/5-108, 5- 109 (West 2022)), so these claims could not have arisen until after the trial court entered its judgment in the case. ¶ 24 Further guidance can be found in Berger v. Matthews, 216 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Joe Contarino, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Specifically, it argued that: (1) as to Rockford, the court was mistaken as to the timing of the receipt of funds, as BMO was the only party with a lien on the funds currently held by Briargate; (2) as to Rockford, the court misstated the law in holding that a forbearance agreement (which, BMO claimed, gives rise only to a contractual claim, not a lien, on collected rents) takes priority over a lien right; and (3) as to Rockford, even if Rockford’s -6 2017 IL App (2d) 160371 claim was superior to BMO’s claim, the forbearance obligations were never proved up and JCI might not owe Rockford any | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Harrington v. State of New York Office of Court Administration
neutral
1 sentence2011App. 3d 1, 6 , 933 N.E.2d 860 (2010) (citing Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co., 392 Ill. 182, 187 , 464 N.E.2d 477 (1945)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Loman v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2010In Loman v. Freeman, 375 Ill.App.3d 445, 456 , 314 Ill.Dec. 446 , 874 N.E.2d 542 (2006), the court explained, "In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence." "Property damage" refers to damage to property other than the defective product itself. 2010In Loman v. Freeman, 375 Ill.App.3d 445, 456 , 314 Ill.Dec. 446 , 874 N.E.2d 542 (2006), the court explained, "In contrast to a contractual claim, which alleges only economic damages or disappointed commercial expectations, a tort claim alleges the infliction of personal injury or property damage by a sudden or dangerous occurrence." "Property damage" refers to damage to property other than the defective product itself. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp.
green
2 sentences2009App. 3d 1002, 1006 , 830 N.E.2d 636, 641-42 (2005) (citing Herington and Liccardi for purposes of a contractual waiver of the Kotecki damage cap {Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991))); Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals (Chicago), Inc., 283 Ill. 2009App. 3d 1002, 1006 , 830 N.E.2d 636, 641-42 (2005) (citing Herington and Liccardi for purposes of a contractual waiver of the Kotecki damage cap {Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 (1991))); Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals (Chicago), Inc., 283 Ill. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Smith v. Bogard
green
2 sentences2009This exact issue was raised and decided against the contractor in Smith v. Bogard, 377 Ill. 2009This exact issue was raised and decided against the contractor in Smith v. Bogard, 377 Ill.App.3d 842 , 316 Ill.Dec. 476 , 879 N.E.2d 543 (2007). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Allstate Insurance v. Smiley green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Shaw v. Bridges-Gallagher, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| LeFevour v. Howorka green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Board of Education v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Star Finance Corp. v. McGee green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Calanca v. D & S MANUFACTURING CO. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Martin-Trigona v. Roderick green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Maine State Employees Ass'n green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Maine State Employees Ass'n green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Green v. Hughes Aircraft Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. Warren Construction Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Kuhlmann v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Huckleberry v. Wilson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In Re Estate of Holmberg green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Nikkari v. Jackson green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gantt green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Conley v. Singleton neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Williams v. Moran neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Van Houten v. Trust Co. of Chicago neutral | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| International Shoe Co. v. Washington green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Kolivera v. Hartford Fire Insurance green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.