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 1987–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth Eastern Mortgage Co. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024“The judicial policy behind this rule is that once a party has given sworn testimony, he should not be allowed to commit perjury and change his testimony so as to avoid the consequences of his prior testimony.” Commonwealth Eastern Mortgage Company v. Williams, 163 Ill. App. 3d 103, 109 (1987). ¶ 21 Montes also contends that “the September 2017 phone call from Carl Foster did not provide [him] with sufficient information to trigger the discovery rule,” but Foster told Montes in this call that his practice had been issuing wages as advancements to his employees for years without reporting the w 2019Id. at 109 . ¶ 69 However, the deposition statements offered by petitioner here are not respondent’s under oath deposition statements, but those of Dr. Seltzberg concerning statements made to her by respondent. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. Orthopedic Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Montes’s decision to accept Gomez- Pietrzyk’s explanation for the bookkeeping irregularities that Foster had flagged for him because he “trusted” her instead of conducting an independent investigation of her bookkeeping practices “does not excuse [him] from failing to comply with the statute of limitations.” Hoffman, 327 Ill. App. 3d at 1011 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Chmielewski v. Kahlfeldt
green
1 sentence2021“The judicial policy behind this rule, which is well accepted in summary judgment cases, is that once a party has given sworn testimony, he should not be allowed to change his testimony to avoid the consequences of his prior testimony.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Fountaine v. Hadlock
green
1 sentence1987App. 2d 343 , 270 N.E.2d 222 .) The judicial policy behind this rule is that once a party has given sworn testimony, he should not be allowed to commit perjury and change his testimony so as to avoid the consequences of his prior testimony. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Smith v. Ashley
green
1 sentence1987Smith v. Ashley (1975), 29 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |