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 1987–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fure v. Sherman Hospital
green
2 sentences2015The court discussed the inequity of applying the discovery rule to personal injury actions but not wrongful death actions, concluding: “In our opinion there should be no barrier to the application of the ‘discovery’ rule based on the ultimate tragedy of death where the circumstances of the death would have permitted an extension of the time limitation for the mere wounding or injury of the person and we hold that the fact of death does not per se foreclose the use of the discovery doctrine.” Id. at 270 . 2015The court discussed the inequity of applying the discovery rule to personal injury actions but not wrongful death actions, concluding: “In our opinion there should be no barrier to the application of the ‘discovery’ rule based on the ultimate tragedy of death where the circumstances of the death would have permitted an extension of the time limitation for the mere wounding or injury of the person and we hold that the fact of death does not per se foreclose the use of the discovery doctrine.” Id. at 270 . | 5 | 1987–2015 |
Wyness v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The dissent cites Wyness, 131 Ill. 2d at 413 , for this proposition. 2015The dissent cites Wyness, 131 Ill. 2d at 413 , for this proposition. | 4 | 2015–2015 |
Coleman v. Hinsdale Emergency Medical Corp.
green
2 sentences2015The Second District reaffirmed its holding four years later, stating, “the discovery rule *** is applicable in a wrongful death case.” Coleman, 108 Ill. 2015The Second District reaffirmed its holding four years later, stating, “the discovery rule *** is applicable in a wrongful death case.” Coleman, 108 Ill. | 4 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2008Davis, 351 Ill. 2008Davis, 351 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.