Simpson rule in Illinois

2015After a motion to confirm the sale has been filed, it is not sufficient under section 15-1508(b)(iv) to merely raise a meritorious defense to the complaint.” McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 26 . ¶ 68 Simpson’s challenge to the sale was based on the same defenses she made against the foreclosure and did not rest on any independent facts regarding the conduct of the sale itself.

2015After a motion to confirm the sale has been filed, it is not sufficient under section 15-1508(b)(iv) to merely raise a meritorious defense to the complaint.” McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 26 . ¶ 68 Simpson’s challenge to the sale was based on the same defenses she made against the foreclosure and did not rest on any independent facts regarding the conduct of the sale itself.

2009People v. Langley, 226 Ill.

1972In particular the defendant cites the following quotation from First Pennsylvania namely, “Although Simpson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1968), 30 A.D.2d 265 , 291 N.Y.S.2d 532 , reaches a different conclusion, since there are no Pennsylvania decisions on this point, we are in agreement that if the precise point came before a Pennsylvania court it would follow the logic and reasoning of Fisher, supra. For, as pointed out, the court below concerns itself (with) whether the decedent was covered by the policy, a matter of coverage, and does not go to the invalidity of tire policy itself.

1972In particular the defendant cites the following quotation from First Pennsylvania namely, “Although Simpson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1968), 30 A.D.2d 265 , 291 N.Y.S.2d 532 , reaches a different conclusion, since there are no Pennsylvania decisions on this point, we are in agreement that if the precise point came before a Pennsylvania court it would follow the logic and reasoning of Fisher, supra. For, as pointed out, the court below concerns itself (with) whether the decedent was covered by the policy, a matter of coverage, and does not go to the invalidity of tire policy itself.

1972First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. v. United States Life Insurance Co. in the City of New York (3rd Cir. 1969), 421 F.2d 959 , is the case principally relied upon by defendant in support of its contention that the Fisher rule rather than the Simpson rule represents the prevailing view.

1972First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. v. United States Life Insurance Co. in the City of New York (3rd Cir. 1969), 421 F.2d 959 , is the case principally relied upon by defendant in support of its contention that the Fisher rule rather than the Simpson rule represents the prevailing view.