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 1973–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Raintree Vacation Exchange, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Id. at *25 (citing Adams v. Raintree Vacation Exchange, LLC, 702 F. 3d 436, 441 (7th Cir. 2012)). ¶42 The touchstone illustrated by these cases is that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant by enforcing a forum selection clause against it, even though it was not a signatory to the contract containing the clause, where it was closely related to the dispute such that it became foreseeable that the nonsignatory would be bound, regardless of whether the non- signatory is a defendant or a plaintiff in the subject litigation. 2014Id. at *25 (citing Adams v. Raintree Vacation Exchange, LLC, 702 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir. 2012)). ¶ 42 The touchstone illustrated by these cases is that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant by enforcing a forum selection clause against it, even though it was not a signatory to the contract containing the clause, where it was closely related to the dispute such that it became foreseeable that the nonsignatory would be bound, regardless of whether the nonsignatory is a defendant or a plaintiff in the subject litigation. | 2 | 2 |
Discover Bank v. Superior Courtred2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt | 2 | 2 |
Klussman v. Cross Country Bankgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt | 2 | 2 |
Aral v. Earthlink, Inc.green2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt | 2 | 2 |
Whitney v. Alltel Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of Aindirect, special, and consequential damages@ and restricts plaintiffs to Aa forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,@ by foreclosing Apractical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration@); Discover -29- Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148 , 162- 63, 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Ca | 2 | 2 |
Leonard v. Terminix Intern. Co., LPgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of Aindirect, special, and consequential damages@ and restricts plaintiffs to Aa forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,@ by foreclosing Apractical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration@); Discover -29- Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148 , 162- 63, 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Ca | 2 | 2 |
Bellsouth Mobility LLC v. Christophergreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of Aindirect, special, and consequential damages@ and restricts plaintiffs to Aa forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,@ by foreclosing Apractical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration@); Discover -29- Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148 , 162- 63, 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Ca | 2 | 2 |
Szetela v. Discover Bankgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt | 2 | 2 |
Powertel, Inc. v. Bexleygreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of “indirect, special, and consequential damages” and restricts plaintiffs to “a forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,” by foreclosing “practical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration”); Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 , 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Cal. Rpt 2006See, e.g., Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (finding arbitration clause unconscionable because it is in a contract of adhesion that limits recovery of Aindirect, special, and consequential damages@ and restricts plaintiffs to Aa forum where the expense of pursuing their claim far exceeds the amount in controversy,@ by foreclosing Apractical redress through a class action and limiting them to a disproportionately expensive individual arbitration@); Discover -29- Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4th 148 , 162- 63, 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 , 30 Ca | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American National Bank of San Francisco v. A. G. Sommerville, Inc.
green
1 sentence1973Sommerville, Inc. (Cal. 1923), 216 P. 376, 378 ; Geiger Finance Co. v. Graham (Ga. App. 1971), 182 S.E.2d 521, 524 .) In transactions in which either a negotiable note or a contract containing a waiver of defense clause evidences the buyer’s obligation, the practical effect on the buyer is much the same. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Geiger Finance Co. v. Graham
green
1 sentence1973Sommerville, Inc. (Cal. 1923), 216 P. 376, 378 ; Geiger Finance Co. v. Graham (Ga. App. 1971), 182 S.E.2d 521, 524 .) In transactions in which either a negotiable note or a contract containing a waiver of defense clause evidences the buyer’s obligation, the practical effect on the buyer is much the same. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.