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 2 courts 1986–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hanzel Construction, Inc. v. Wehde & Southwick, Inc.green2 sentences1999The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that "`State officials and employees are protected from personal liability for actions taken in the exercise of their official discretion [citations omitted].'" Janes v. Albergo, 254 Ill.App.3d 951, 957 , 193 Ill.Dec. 576 , 626 N.E.2d 1127, 1131 (1993), quoting Hanzel Construction, Inc. v. Wehde & Southwick, Inc., 130 Ill.App.3d 196, 200 , 85 Ill.Dec. 624 , 474 N.E.2d 38, 41-42 (1985). 1999The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that "`State officials and employees are protected from personal liability for actions taken in the exercise of their official discretion [citations omitted].'" Janes v. Albergo, 254 Ill.App.3d 951, 957 , 193 Ill.Dec. 576 , 626 N.E.2d 1127, 1131 (1993), quoting Hanzel Construction, Inc. v. Wehde & Southwick, Inc., 130 Ill.App.3d 196, 200 , 85 Ill.Dec. 624 , 474 N.E.2d 38, 41-42 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Janes v. Albergogreen2 sentences1999The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that "`State officials and employees are protected from personal liability for actions taken in the exercise of their official discretion [citations omitted].'" Janes v. Albergo, 254 Ill.App.3d 951, 957 , 193 Ill.Dec. 576 , 626 N.E.2d 1127, 1131 (1993), quoting Hanzel Construction, Inc. v. Wehde & Southwick, Inc., 130 Ill.App.3d 196, 200 , 85 Ill.Dec. 624 , 474 N.E.2d 38, 41-42 (1985). 1999The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that “ ‘State officials and employees are protected from personal liability for actions taken in the exercise of their official discretion. [Citations.]’ ” Janes v. Albergo, 254 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1986See Hicks v. Williams (1982), 104 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kinzer v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences1995(Kinzer I, 128 Ill. 2d at 445-46 .) On our last review of this litigation, we held that Fidelity’s liability was not predicated on its being a "surety” for Grim, but that its liability was broader in scope. 1991Scott v.J Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d [485,] 502.) Although the expenditures made by Grim violated section 8 — 1—7 of the Code, he had no reason to believe that these expenditures were illegal ***. *** Grim’s official conduct in entering into contracts, incurring expenses and charging these expenditures to Fund 666 clearly fall within the boundaries of the common law public official immunity doctrine.” 128 Ill. 2d at 445-46 . | 2 | 1991–1995 |
People Ex Rel. Scott v. Briceland
green
2 sentences1989Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 502 .) The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that “a public officer is immune from individual liability for the performance of discretionary duties in good faith.” (Briceland, 65 Ill. 2d at 502 .) Although the expenditures made by Grim violated section 8 — 1—7 of the Code, he had no reason to believe that these expenditures were illegal, because he followed the practice established by his predecessors and charged the expenditures relating to special events to Fund 666 which had been designated as a “Special Revenue Fund” by his pre 1989Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 502 .) The common law public official immunity doctrine provides that “a public officer is immune from individual liability for the performance of discretionary duties in good faith.” (Briceland, 65 Ill. 2d at 502 .) Although the expenditures made by Grim violated section 8 — 1—7 of the Code, he had no reason to believe that these expenditures were illegal, because he followed the practice established by his predecessors and charged the expenditures relating to special events to Fund 666 which had been designated as a “Special Revenue Fund” by his pre | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mora v. State
green
1 sentence1989(Mora v. State of Illinois (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 223, 233-34 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mallder v. Rasmussen
green
1 sentence1988(Mallder v. Rasmussen (1986), 145 Ill. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.