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 1982–2010 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Levygreen2 sentences2010Myers v. Levy, 348 Ill. 2010Myers v. Levy, 348 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Frankgreen2 sentences2008"An absolute privilege provides a -5- No. 2--06--1275 complete bar to a claim for defamation, regardless of the defendant's motive or the unreasonableness of his or her conduct." Thompson v. Frank, 313 Ill. 2008“An absolute privilege provides a complete bar to a claim for defamation, regardless of the defendant’s motive or the unreasonableness of his or her conduct.” Thompson v. Frank, 313 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Joseph v. Collisgreen2 sentences2006See Joseph v. Collis, 272 Ill. 2006See Joseph v. Collis, 272 Ill.App.3d 200, 210 , 208 Ill.Dec. 604 , 649 N.E.2d 964 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Smithgreen2 sentences1982The court held that the communication was not absolutely privileged but was protected by a conditional or qualified privilege. 48 Cal.. App. 3d 1032, 1037, 121 Cal. Rptr. 853, 856 ; see also Moore v. Smith (1978), 89 Wash. 2d 932 , 578 P.2d 26, 29-30 . 1982The court held that the communication was not absolutely privileged but was protected by a conditional or qualified privilege. 48 Cal.. App. 3d 1032, 1037, 121 Cal. Rptr. 853, 856 ; see also Moore v. Smith (1978), 89 Wash. 2d 932 , 578 P.2d 26, 29-30 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2008"There are two classes of privileged statements: those subject to an absolute privilege, and those subject to a conditional or qualified privilege." Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 585 . 2008“There are two classes of privileged statements: those subject to an absolute privilege, and those subject to a conditional or qualified privilege.” Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 585 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Judge v. Rockford Memorial Hospital
green
1 sentence1982The elements of conditional privilege are set forth in Judge v. Rockford Memorial Hospital (1958), 17 Ill. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Katz v. Rosen
green
1 sentence1982The court held that the communication was not absolutely privileged but was protected by a conditional or qualified privilege. 48 Cal.. App. 3d 1032, 1037, 121 Cal. Rptr. 853, 856 ; see also Moore v. Smith (1978), 89 Wash. 2d 932 , 578 P.2d 26, 29-30 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.