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 1 courts 1994–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois Masonic Medical Center v. AC & Sgreen2 sentences1997In Illinois, a manufacturer is not protected under the construction statute of repose "unless the manufacturer can demonstrate its role in the construction extended beyond furnishing standard products generally available to the public.” (Emphasis omitted.) Illinois Masonic Medical Center v. AC&S, 266 Ill. 1997In Illinois, a manufacturer is not protected under the construction statute of repose "unless the manufacturer can demonstrate its role in the construction extended beyond furnishing standard products generally available to the public." Illinois Masonic Medical Center v. AC&S, 266 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Asbestospray Corp.
green
2 sentences2001App. 3d at 197 , citing People v. Asbestospray Corp., 247 Ill. 1994Asbestospray, 247 Ill. | 3 | 1994–2001 |
Risch v. Paul J. Krez Co.
green
1 sentence2001App. 3d 631 , 638 (1994) , a manufacturer is protected under the construction statute of repose only if it can “demonstrate its role in the construction extended beyond furnishing standard products generally available to the public.” Similarly, the Risch court stated: “Under the activity analysis, manufacturers are afforded protection when they substantially participate in the incorporation or installation of the product at the jobsite or custom design the product for the specific jobsite.” Risch, 287 Ill. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Heider v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
neutral
1 sentence1994Ill. 1993), 815 F. Supp. 1137 (manufacturer of fireproofing material denied section 13 — 214(b) protection in asbestos-property damage case). •4 Therefore, section 13 — 214(b) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to an action against an entity which designed and/or manufactured but did not install a material or product which was incorporated into a building during construction unless the manufacturer can demonstrate its role in the construction extended beyond furnishing standard products generally available to the public and not custom designed for introduction into the cons | 1 | 1994–1994 |