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 1981–2008 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 Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co.green2 sentences2008It has been deemed necessary not only to show that the claim asserted was unlawful, but also that the payment was not voluntary; that there was some necessity which amounted to compulsion, and payment was made under the influence of such compulsion.’ ” Getto, 86 Ill. 2d at 48-49 , quoting Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 541 (1908). 2008It has been deemed necessary not only to show that the -3- claim asserted was unlawful, but also that the payment was not voluntary; that there was some necessity which amounted to compulsion, and payment was made under the influence of such compulsion.’ ” Getto, 86 Ill. 2d at 48-49 , quoting Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 541 (1908). | 2 | 2 |
Purtill v. Hessgreen2 sentences2004This court has explained the requirement of expert medical testimony in a medical malpractice action as follows: "In a negligence medical malpractice case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the following elements of a cause of action: the proper standard of care against which the defendant physician's conduct is measured; an unskilled or negligent failure to comply with the applicable standard; and a resulting injury proximately caused by the physician's want of skill or care. [Citations.] Unless the physician's negligence is so grossly apparent or the treatment so common as to be within 2004This court has explained the requirement of expert medical testimony in a medical malpractice action as follows: “In a negligence medical malpractice case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the following elements of a cause of action: the proper standard of care against which the defendant physician’s conduct is measured; an unskilled or negligent failure to comply with the applicable standard; and a resulting injury proximately caused by the physician’s want of skill or care. [Citations.] Unless the physician’s negligence is so grossly apparent or the treatment so common as to be within | 2 | 2 |
Dolan v. Galluzzogreen2 sentences2004Accord Dolan v. Galluzzo, 77 Ill.2d 279, 282 , 32 Ill.Dec. 900 , 396 N.E.2d 13 (1979). 2004Accord Dolan v. Galluzzo, 77 Ill. 2d 279, 282 (1979). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Getto v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2008It has been deemed necessary not only to show that the claim asserted was unlawful, but also that the payment was not voluntary; that there was some necessity which amounted to compulsion, and payment was made under the influence of such compulsion.’ ” Getto, 86 Ill. 2d at 48-49 , quoting Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 541 (1908). 2008It has been deemed necessary not only to show that the -3- claim asserted was unlawful, but also that the payment was not voluntary; that there was some necessity which amounted to compulsion, and payment was made under the influence of such compulsion.’ ” Getto, 86 Ill. 2d at 48-49 , quoting Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 541 (1908). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School
green
2 sentences1981Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 57.2.) The court has explained the test to be applied under section 57.2(a)(2): "So long as there are questions of fact or law common to the class and these predominate over questions affecting only individual members of such class, the statutory requisite is met." ( Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School (1977), 69 Ill.2d 320, 338 .) *17 Apparently, the appellate court interpreted this section to require both a common question of fact and a common question of law. 1981Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 57.2.) The court has explained the test to be applied under section 57.2(a)(2): “So long as there are questions of fact or law common to the class and these predominate over questions affecting only individual members of such class, the statutory requisite is met.” (Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 320, 338 .) Apparently, the appellate court interpreted this section to require both a common question of fact and a common question of law. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.