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 1975–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mittelman v. Witousred1 sentence1990(HPI, 131 Ill. 2d at 158 , 545 N.E.2d at 678 ; see also Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 249 .) The circuit court’s instruction here was consistent with supreme court case law and reflected plaintiff’s theory at trial that defendant’s decision to terminate plaintiff was not justified because it was made to further his plan to isolate Harold, which plan was part of a broader scheme to force Harold to sell his interest in Crown. 2 We turn now to whether plaintiff has presented a sufficient theory of liability to meet his burden of proving that defendant acted for his own personal interest and contrary | 1 | 1 |
Board v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence1988See Board v. Industrial Comm’n (1986), 148 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 |
|---|---|---|
Northern Trust Co. v. VIII South Michigan Associates
green
2 sentences2001VIII South Michigan, 276 Ill. 2001VIII South Michigan , 276 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Home Savings Ass'n v. State Bank of Woodstock
green
1 sentence1995Ill. 1991), 763 F. Supp. 292 .) If shareholders of a corporation are injured by a diminution in the value of their shares, a shareholder cannot proceed individually to assert the corporate claim, but rather must proceed by means of a derivative suit. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kennedy v. First National Bank
green
1 sentence1995(See Kennedy v. First National Bank (1985), 129 Ill. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990In HPI, the supreme court explained that actual malice, or an unjustified conduct, would be proven by showing conduct “which is totally unrelated or even antagonistic to the interest which gave rise to defendant’s privilege.” (HPI, 131 Ill. 2d at 158 , 545 N.E.2d at 678 .) In applying the standard to the corporate privilege, the court explained that conduct would not be justified where the interference is solely for the person’s own gain or is solely for the purpose of harming the plaintiff since such conduct would not have been done to further the corporation’s interests. 1990In HPI, the supreme court explained that actual malice, or an unjustified conduct, would be proven by showing conduct “which is totally unrelated or even antagonistic to the interest which gave rise to defendant’s privilege.” (HPI, 131 Ill. 2d at 158 , 545 N.E.2d at 678 .) In applying the standard to the corporate privilege, the court explained that conduct would not be justified where the interference is solely for the person’s own gain or is solely for the purpose of harming the plaintiff since such conduct would not have been done to further the corporation’s interests. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
green
2 sentences1975In Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Co., 31 Ill.2d 69, 115 , it is stated: “As a general rule any statement, written or not, made by a party or in his behalf which is inconsistent with his present position may be introduced in evidence against him. 1975In Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Co., 31 Ill.2d 69, 115 , it is stated: "As a general rule any statement, written or not, made by a party or in his behalf which is inconsistent with his present position may be introduced in evidence against him. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.