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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGrew v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.green2 sentences2021While the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misstated or exaggerated the underlying debt at issue – for example, by filing inflated proofs of claim – the validity of the underlying debt is “simply irrelevant to an abuse of process claim.” McGrew, 147 Ill. 2018See id. ("the validity of the underlying debt is simply irrelevant to an abuse of process claim"). | 2 | 3 |
Landmark Insurance Company v. NIP Groupgreen1 sentence2023We now turn to the merits of his claim. ¶ 56 We note that while the trial court determined that Florida law should apply to the abuse of process claim, the parties agree that the court should have applied Illinois law because “ ‘[a] choice-of-law determination is required only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome.’ ” Landmark American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 21 (quoting Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 155 (2007)). 20 No. 1-22-0273 “ ‘If the relevant laws of the two states yield essentially the same result regard | 1 | 1 |
Gleim v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2023We now turn to the merits of his claim. ¶ 56 We note that while the trial court determined that Florida law should apply to the abuse of process claim, the parties agree that the court should have applied Illinois law because “ ‘[a] choice-of-law determination is required only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome.’ ” Landmark American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 21 (quoting Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 155 (2007)). 20 No. 1-22-0273 “ ‘If the relevant laws of the two states yield essentially the same result regard | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.green2 sentences2023We now turn to the merits of his claim. ¶ 56 We note that while the trial court determined that Florida law should apply to the abuse of process claim, the parties agree that the court should have applied Illinois law because “ ‘[a] choice-of-law determination is required only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome.’ ” Landmark American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 21 (quoting Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 155 (2007)). 20 No. 1-22-0273 “ ‘If the relevant laws of the two states yield essentially the same result regard 2023We now turn to the merits of his claim. ¶ 56 We note that while the trial court determined that Florida law should apply to the abuse of process claim, the parties agree that the court should have applied Illinois law because “ ‘[a] choice-of-law determination is required only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome.’ ” Landmark American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 21 (quoting Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 155 (2007)). 20 No. 1-22-0273 “ ‘If the relevant laws of the two states yield essentially the same result regard | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Shlenskygreen1 sentence2021While we believe it is likely that Coralynn has pled sufficient facts as to the ulterior motive element as it pertains to Joseph and Amber, we withhold our analysis of that element at this time and, instead, focus on the second element of abuse of process, as we find it determinative to the claims against all defendants. 22 ¶ 83 “The test for sufficiency of the allegations pertaining to the second element is whether process has been used to accomplish some result which is beyond the purview of the process, or which compels the party against whom it is used to do some collateral thing which he | 1 | 1 |
Withall v. Capitol Federal Savings of Americagreen1 sentence2021See also Withall v. Capitol Federal Savings of America, 155 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Holiday Magic, Inc. v. Scottgreen1 sentence2003Holiday Magic, Inc. v. Scott, 4 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of Lyons v. Schultzgreen2 sentences1996Bank of Lyons v. Schultz, 78 Ill. 2d 235, 241 (1980). 1996Bank of Lyons v. Schultz, 78 Ill.2d 235, 241 , 35 Ill.Dec. 758 , 399 N.E.2d 1286 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kumar v. Bornstein
green
2 sentences2023App. 3d at 165-66 . ¶ 58 We find that Oppenheim’s claim fails because his complaint does not satisfy the second element of an abuse of process claim, which requires proof “that the process was used to accomplish some result that is beyond the purview of the process.” Id. at 165 . 2021Kumar, 354 Ill. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
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.