Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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 2 courts 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2016As one court has aptly noted, “[c]onceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. State, 664 P.2d 137, 139 (Cal. 1983). 2016As one court has aptly noted, “[c]onceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. State, 664 P.2d 137, 139 (Cal. 1983). | 2 | 2 |
City of Chicago v. Westphalengreen1 sentence2025App. 3d 800, 802 (1976) (defendant bank had the burden to plead the applicability of a statutory exception in action to cancel note for lack of consideration); City of Chicago v. Westphalen, 95 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
City of Chicago v. Elmhurst National Bankgreen1 sentence2025App. 2d 331, 338 (1968) (while the City had the burden of proving its complaint, the defendant had the burden of establishing building code exception); City of Chicago v. Elmhurst National Bank, 35 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arteman v. CLINTON COM. UNIT SCHOOL DIST.
green
2 sentences2004They argue, however, that the Calloway decision at most established that the Domestic Violence Act created a statutory duty, but the supreme court did not address the separate issue of the applicability of a statutory immunity (see Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15, 198 Ill. 2d 475, 487 , 763 N.E.2d 756 (2002) (question of existence of a duty and immunity are separate issues)). 2004They argue, however, that the Calloway decision at most established that the Domestic Violence Act created a statutory duty, but the supreme court did not address the separate issue of the applicability of a statutory immunity (see Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15, 198 Ill. 2d 475, 487 , 763 N.E.2d 756 (2002) (question of existence of a duty and immunity are separate issues)). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2021Zagorski, 2016 IL App (5th) 140056, ¶ 21 . ¶ 28 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) (eff. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Norskog v. Pfiel
green
2 sentences2016Norskog, 197 Ill. 2d at 70-71 , 755 N.E.2d at 9 . ¶ 22 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) addresses the scope of pretrial discovery, and provides that unless otherwise stated in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to a claim or defense. 2016Norskog, 197 Ill. 2d at 70-71 , 755 N.E.2d at 9 . ¶ 22 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) addresses the scope of pretrial discovery, and provides that unless otherwise stated in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to a claim or defense. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.