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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. Closegreen2 sentences1978App.3d 620, 622 , 350 N.E.2d 249, 251 , Mr. Justice Moran succinctly summarized the Illinois view on the enforcement of releases: "A release, in essence, is the abandoning of a claim to the person *735 against whom the claim exists and where the release is executed with knowledge of its meaning, causes of action covered by the release are barred. ( Shaw v. Close, 92 Ill. 1978(Shaw v. Close, 92 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Ogren v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2025He also fails to acknowledge that Tradex is making an argument about the meaning of the statute. ¶ 29 “A release, in essence, is the abandoning of a claim to the person against whom the claim exists and where the release is executed with knowledge of its meaning, causes of action covered by the release are barred.” Ogren v. Graves, 39 Ill. 1978App. 3d 620, 622 , 350 N.E.2d 249, 251 , Mr. Justice Moran succinctly summarized the Illinois view on the enforcement of releases: “A release, in essence, is the abandoning of a claim to the person against whom the claim exists and where the release is executed with knowledge of its meaning, causes of action covered by the release are barred. | 1 | 5 |
International Ins. Co. v. Sargent & Lundygreen1 sentence2025App. 3d 620, 622 (1976); International Insurance Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 242 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Child v. Lincoln Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence1978App.2d 1, 3 (1968).) Because the law favors compromise, the party contending that a release was secured as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, must prove such by clear and convincing evidence. ( Child v. Lincoln Enterprises, Inc., 51 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 |
|---|---|---|
Witek v. Leisure Technology Midwest, Inc.
green
1 sentence1978App. 3d 637, 640 ; 350 N.E.2d 242, 245 .) “A release, in essence, is the abandoning of a claim to the person against whom the claim exists and where the release is executed with knowledge of its meaning, causes of action covered by the release are barred.” (Ogren v. Graves (1976), 39 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.