completed waiver (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

completed waiver in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2018 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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Zachary Wolff green
ca8 · 2015
2 sentences

2018Wolff, 796 F.3d at 974 .

2017Wolff , 796 F.3d at 974 .

22017–2018
Antiporek v. Village of Hillside green
ill · 1986
2 sentences

1998As this court observed in Antiporek v. Village of Hillside, 114 Ill. 2d 246 (1986), it was well established under the pre-1986 amendment version of section 9 — 103(c) that the Act’s immunities are “effectively waived where the public entity is protected by a policy of insurance, issued by an insurance ‘company,’ covering an alleged liability.” Antiporek, 114 Ill. 2d at 247 .

1998As this court observed in Antiporek v. Village of Hillside, 114 Ill. 2d 246 (1986), it was well established under the pre-1986 amendment version of section 9 — 103(c) that the Act’s immunities are “effectively waived where the public entity is protected by a policy of insurance, issued by an insurance ‘company,’ covering an alleged liability.” Antiporek, 114 Ill. 2d at 247 .

21998–1998
Board of Education v. Blodgett green
ill · 1895
2 sentences

1993(Board of Education v. Blodgett (1895), 155 Ill. 441, 446 , 40 N.E. 1025 , 1026) (amendment extending time to file an action held inapplicable to actions barred by running of previous statute of limitations).) In Blodgett, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that “the right to set up the bar of a statute of limitations as a defense to a cause of action, after the statute has run, is a vested right, and cannot be taken away by legislation, either by a repeal of the statute without saving clause or by an affirmative act, and that it is immaterial whether the action is for the recovery of real or p

1993(Board of Education v. Blodgett (1895), 155 Ill. 441, 446 , 40 N.E. 1025 , 1026) (amendment extending time to file an action held inapplicable to actions barred by running of previous statute of limitations).) In Blodgett, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that “the right to set up the bar of a statute of limitations as a defense to a cause of action, after the statute has run, is a vested right, and cannot be taken away by legislation, either by a repeal of the statute without saving clause or by an affirmative act, and that it is immaterial whether the action is for the recovery of real or p

11993–1993

Where else courts name it

CA 18 (1985–2026) PA 9 (1964–2021) GA 5 (2011–2022) IL 5 (1993–2018) WI 4 (1884–2020) TX 4 (2010–2024) WA 3 (2018–2021) ND 3 (1996–2015) IA 3 (2016–2017) KS 2 (2009–2012) NE 2 (1991–2017) WY 2 (1989–2020) NC 2 (2022–2022) CT 2 (2003–2010) NY 2 (2025–2025) DC 2 (2006–2017) OK 2 (1999–2000) AL 2 (1881–2011) OH 2 (2008–2018)

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