5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Healthgreen2 sentences2017Courts liberally construe the Act to achieve the goal of “provid[ing] the public with easy access to government information” Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 416 (2006). 2017Courts liberally construe the Act to achieve the goal of “provid[ing] the public with easy access to government information.” Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 416 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District No. 65green2 sentences2017For the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the exemption applies. 6 We conclude that plaintiff’s arguments essentially challenge the validity of JRM’s trade-secret and copyright claims and that proceedings under the Act are not the proper mechanism to challenge such claims and, further, that this court is not the proper forum in which to challenge a copyright claim. ¶ 55 Under the Act, Illinois has established a public policy that all “persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and 2017For the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the exemption applies.6 We conclude that plaintiff’s arguments essentially challenge the validity of JRM’s trade secret and copyright claims, that proceedings under the Act are not the proper mechanism to challenge such claims, and that this court is not the proper forum in which to challenge a copyright claim. ¶ 55 Under the Act, Illinois has established a public policy that all “persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of | 2 | 2 |
Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.green2 sentences2000Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. , 734 F. Supp. 1542, 1550 (N.D. 2000Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 734 F. Supp. 1542, 1550 (N.D. | 2 | 2 |
The National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc.green2 sentences2012Section 103 protects compilations and derivative works. 17 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). ¶ 24 The second prong of section 301(b) calls for a comparison of the elements of the common law claim with those of the copyright claim. “[I]f an extra element is required [by the common law claim] instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, then the right does not lie within the general scope of copyright, and there is no preemption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, I 2012National Basketball Ass’n, 105 F.3d at 849, 854 (finding preemption of the NBA’s misappropriation claim against Motorola for copying and distributing NBA scores via a consumer paging device without the NBA’s permission). | 1 | 1 |
Computer Associates International, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Altai, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellantgreen1 sentence2012Section 103 protects compilations and derivative works. 17 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). ¶ 24 The second prong of section 301(b) calls for a comparison of the elements of the common law claim with those of the copyright claim. “[I]f an extra element is required [by the common law claim] instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, then the right does not lie within the general scope of copyright, and there is no preemption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, I | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. Wiredata, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017He relies on Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), to support this claim. 2017He relies on Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), to support this claim. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Stillman v. Leo Burnett Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2000The state laws, by contrast, will protect Stillman's right to prevent others from fraudulently taking credit for, and presumably benefitting in the future from Stillman's ability to develop novel ideas." Stillman , 720 F. Supp. at 1363 . 2000The state laws, by contrast, will protect Stillman’s right to prevent others from fraudulently taking credit for, and presumably benefitting in the fixture from Stillman’s ability to develop novel ideas.” Stillman, 720 F. Supp. at 1363 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Standard & Poor's Corporation, Inc. v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Standard & Poor's Corp. v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012In fact, consistent with the finding that preemption did not apply, the district court found that “Comex is misappropriating the S&P 500 Index and the skills, expenditures, labor and reputation of S&P in generating and producing the S&P 500 Index, for Comex’s own advantage and profit by creating a futures contract based on the S&P 500 Index.” Comex I, 538 F. Supp. at 1071 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.