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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1955–1984 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goodman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences1955See also Goodman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co., 331 Pa. 587 , 200 Atl. 642 (1938); Pessagno v. Euclid Inv. 1955See also Goodman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co., 331 Pa. 587 , 200 Atl. 642 (1938); Pessagno v. Euclid Inv. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Durkin v. Lewitz
green
2 sentences1977App. 2d 481 , 123 N.E.2d 151 , and the dicta there favoring the Connecticut rule requiring property owners to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice after a reasonable time or be liable for injuries suffered by their tenants. 1977App. 2d 481 , 123 N.E.2d 151 , and the dicta there favoring the Connecticut rule requiring property owners to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice after a reasonable time or be liable for injuries suffered by their tenants. | 2 | 1968–1977 |
People Ex Rel. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Gitchoff
green
1 sentence1984Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Gitchoff, 65 Ill. 2d 249, 255 .) The statute does not refer to the filing times of the complaints; the fact that the Connecticut claim was filed six days before the Illinois claim is not controlling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Meyer v. Blackman
green
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Kuharski v. Somers Motor Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Trico Coffee Co. v. Clemens
neutral
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Jaeger v. Sidewater
neutral
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Ball v. Whitaker
green
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Barell Food Stores, Inc. v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s 1965The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, for example, in rejecting the Restatement view, observed: “The Connecticut doctrine rests on the broader ground that every man, who prefers to manage his affairs through others, remains bound to so manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others, while they are engaged upon his business and within the scope of their authority. [Citation], Public policy requires that the master shall beheld liable for negligent acts of the servant performed in the course of his employment even though they are not s | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co.
green
2 sentences1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). 1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Reardon v. Shimelman
green
2 sentences1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). 1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Thompson v. Resnik
green
2 sentences1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). 1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
United Shoe MacHinery Corporation v. Paine
green
2 sentences1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). 1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Massor v. Yates
green
2 sentences1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). 1955The Connecticut rule is supported by the following cases: Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383 , 128 Atl. 705 (1925); United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 26 F.2d 594 (1 C.A. 1928); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534 , 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Massor v. Yates, 137 Ore. 569 , 3 P.2d 784 (1931); Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N. H. 413, 159 Atl. 355 (1932). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.