Loyola factors in Illinois

2026In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend, Illinois courts must determine “(1) - 16 - No. 1-23-2510 whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.” Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263, 273 (1992). ¶ 49 Here, as noted above, plaintiffs did not file a proposed amendment with their pos

2026In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend, Illinois courts must determine “(1) - 16 - No. 1-23-2510 whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.” Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263, 273 (1992). ¶ 49 Here, as noted above, plaintiffs did not file a proposed amendment with their pos

2017Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483, 505 (2002).

2017Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483, 505 (2002).

2010Miller v. Pinnacle Door Co., 301 Ill.

2010Miller v. Pinnacle Door Co., 301 Ill.

2007Prejudice to the party opposing an amendment is the most important of the Loyola factors, and “substantial latitude to amend will be granted when there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmovant.” Paschen Contractors, Inc. v. City of Kankakee, 353 Ill.

2007Prejudice to the party opposing an amendment is the most important of the Loyola factors, and “substantial latitude to amend will be granted when there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmovant.” Paschen Contractors, Inc. v. City of Kankakee, 353 Ill.

2017App. 3d 211 , 220, 341 Ill.Dec. 710 , 931 N.E.2d 318 (2010). ¶ 37 We have considered each of the Loyola factors and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying United's motion for leave to amend.

2017App. 3d 211 , 220, 341 Ill.Dec. 710 , 931 N.E.2d 318 (2010). ¶ 37 We have considered each of the Loyola factors and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying United's motion for leave to amend.

2026“Prejudice to the party opposing an amendment is the most important of the Loyola factors, and substantial latitude to amend will be granted when there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmovant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hartzog v. Martinez, 372 Ill.

2026“Prejudice to the party opposing an amendment is the most important of the Loyola factors, and substantial latitude to amend will be granted when there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmovant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hartzog v. Martinez, 372 Ill.

2025She cites Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432, 467-69 (1992), where our supreme court upheld a trial court’s decision to permit the plaintiff to amend her complaint at trial, just before closing argument.

2020See Lee, 152 Ill. 2d at 469 (trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting the plaintiff to amend the complaint shortly before closing arguments, because although the plaintiff had other opportunities to amend, the defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment). ¶ 41 Aside from the four Loyola factors, defendant argues that the trial court should not have permitted plaintiff to add a claim of negligence because there was no evidence that defendant caused the wood to be on the floor.

2023App. 3d 211, 219 (2010). ¶ 46 When reviewing whether the circuit court abused its discretion, we consider the following Loyola factors: “ ‘(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.’ ” Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P., 351 Ill.

2023App. 3d 211, 219 (2010). ¶ 46 When reviewing whether the circuit court abused its discretion, we consider the following Loyola factors: “ ‘(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.’ ” Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P., 351 Ill.

1998See, e.g., Cvengros v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 99 Ill.

1998See, e.g., Cvengros v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 99 Ill.

2026Oct. 1, 2020), any argument appearing in an appellant’s brief must “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” “An issue that is merely listed or included in a vague allegation of error is not ‘argued’ and will not satisfy the requirements of the rule. [Citations.] Moreover, an argument that is developed beyond mere list or vague allegation may be insufficient if it does not include citations to authority.” Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 369-70 (2010). ¶ 44 Here, William argues that an applica

2026Oct. 1, 2020), any argument appearing in an appellant’s brief must “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” “An issue that is merely listed or included in a vague allegation of error is not ‘argued’ and will not satisfy the requirements of the rule. [Citations.] Moreover, an argument that is developed beyond mere list or vague allegation may be insufficient if it does not include citations to authority.” Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 369-70 (2010). ¶ 44 Here, William argues that an applica

2025“To be entitled to an order granting leave to amend, a party must meet all four Loyola factors.” Devyn Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 2015 IL App (4th) 140819, ¶ 89 ; see Schultz v. Sinav Limited, 2024 IL App (4th) 230366 , ¶ 103 (“We will not reverse unless the plaintiff shows that the trial court incorrectly weighed all four factors.”).

2023Further, where the exercise of discretion has been frustrated by the application of an erroneous rule of law, review is required to permit the exercise in a manner “ ‘consistent with the law.’ ” ’ ” Id. at 274 (quoting People v. Brockman, 143 Ill. 2d 351, 363-64 (1991)). ¶ 32 We find that the State’s motion to amend satisfied all four factors set forth in Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc. The Loyola factors include: “(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment;

2023Further, where the exercise of discretion has been frustrated by the application of an erroneous rule of law, review is required to permit the exercise in a manner “ ‘consistent with the law.’ ” ’ ” Id. at 274 (quoting People v. Brockman, 143 Ill. 2d 351, 363-64 (1991)). ¶ 32 We find that the State’s motion to amend satisfied all four factors set forth in Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc. The Loyola factors include: “(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment;

2023See Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. v. Cocroft, 2018 IL App (1st) 170969, ¶ 46 , 106 N.E.3d 379 (stating the primary consideration in deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is whether it would further the ends of justice). ¶ 35 Considering all the Loyola factors weigh in favor of permitting Natosha the opportunity to amend the petition and how the circuit court failed to make any findings concerning them, we find the court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition with prejudice.

2023See Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. v. Cocroft, 2018 IL App (1st) 170969, ¶ 46 , 106 N.E.3d 379 (stating the primary consideration in deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is whether it would further the ends of justice). ¶ 35 Considering all the Loyola factors weigh in favor of permitting Natosha the opportunity to amend the petition and how the circuit court failed to make any findings concerning them, we find the court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition with prejudice.

2020Lawry’s The Prime Rib, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago, 205 Ill.

2020Lawry’s The Prime Rib, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago, 205 Ill.

2018See Lake County Grading Co. v. Forever Construction, Inc. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160359 , ¶ 87, 414 Ill.Dec. 108 , 79 N.E.3d 743 . ¶ 39 As to the prejudice factor, plaintiff argues that the amendment prejudiced him because, if the exclusive-remedy defense had been raised earlier, "plaintiff would have submitted different written discovery and asked different questions of the numerous deponents." This bare assertion does not demonstrate prejudice.

2018See Lake County Grading Co. v. Forever Construction, Inc. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160359 , ¶ 87, 414 Ill.Dec. 108 , 79 N.E.3d 743 . ¶ 39 As to the prejudice factor, plaintiff argues that the amendment prejudiced him because, if the exclusive-remedy defense had been raised earlier, "plaintiff would have submitted different written discovery and asked different questions of the numerous deponents." This bare assertion does not demonstrate prejudice.

2018See, e.g. , McDonald v. Lipov , 2014 IL App (2d) 130401 , ¶ 49, 382 Ill.Dec. 766 , 13 N.E.3d 179 .

2018See, e.g. , McDonald v. Lipov , 2014 IL App (2d) 130401 , ¶ 49, 382 Ill.Dec. 766 , 13 N.E.3d 179 .

1996See Mendelson v. Ben A. Borenstein & Co., 240 Ill.