discrete rule (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

discrete rule in Illinois

6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2009 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Williams green
ill · 1990
2 sentences

2009In Williams , this court explained that the Taylor rule resembles the doctrine of res judicata, but the rule is nonetheless "a discrete rule of Illinois procedure." Williams, 138 Ill.2d at 392 , 150 Ill.Dec. 498 , 563 N.E.2d 385 .

2009In Williams, this court explained that the Taylor rule resembles the doctrine of res judicata, but the rule is nonetheless “a discrete rule of Illinois procedure.” Williams, 138 Ill. 2d at 392 .

42005–2009
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co. green
ill · 1998
2 sentences

2002In reaching this result, the court noted that: "The burden remains on the plaintiff to establish the elements of his cause of action, which here involved the discrete claim that the defendant wrongfully discharged plaintiff in retaliation for seeking recovery under the Workers' Compensation Act. * * * Other remedies may exist for the other violation, but the burden still rests on plaintiff to prove the elements of the action he has pleaded. " (Emphases added.) Clemons I, 184 Ill.2d at 336-37 , 235 Ill.Dec. 54 , 704 N.E.2d 403 .

2002In reaching this result, the court noted that: "The burden remains on the plaintiff to establish the elements of his cause of action, which here involved the discrete claim that the defendant wrongfully discharged plaintiff in retaliation for seeking recovery under the Workers' Compensation Act. * * * Other remedies may exist for the other violation, but the burden still rests on plaintiff to prove the elements of the action he has pleaded. " (Emphases added.) Clemons I, 184 Ill.2d at 336-37 , 235 Ill.Dec. 54 , 704 N.E.2d 403 .

22002–2002

Where else courts name it

PA 86 (2002–2026) VA 40 (2002–2026) NY 21 (1978–2022) MI 19 (1976–2022) NC 13 (2008–2025) FL 12 (1995–2024) CA 11 (1983–2025) IN 10 (1980–2020) TX 10 (1986–2024) OH 7 (2002–2021) MA 7 (2001–2020) IL 6 (2002–2009) OR 5 (1977–2019) GA 5 (1996–2014) NJ 5 (2000–2025) SD 4 (2020–2025) IA 3 (2011–2020) AZ 3 (1991–2001) MO 3 (1991–2019) WV 2 (2015–2025) CO 2 (1998–2000) HI 2 (2001–2006) WA 2 (2017–2023) KY 2 (2013–2026) UT 2 (2014–2021) DC 2 (2013–2015) ND 2 (1990–1993) MD 2 (2002–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check