5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co.
green
2 sentences2009Clemons, 184 Ill. 2d at 336 . 2009Clemons, 184 Ill.2d at 336 , 235 Ill.Dec. 54 , 704 N.E.2d 403 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Miller v. J.M. Jones Co.
green
2 sentences1997In determining that an illegal defense is no defense, the trial court relied in part upon our statement in Miller that the employer should adduce "some evidence of lawful motivation for the challenged action." Miller, 225 Ill.App.3d at 803 , 167 Ill.Dec. at 389 , 587 N.E.2d at 658 . 1997In determining that an illegal defense is no defense, the trial court relied in part upon our statement in Miller that the employer should adduce "some evidence of lawful motivation for the challenged action." Miller, 225 Ill.App.3d at 803 , 167 Ill.Dec. at 389 , 587 N.E.2d at 658 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co.
green
1 sentence1997Even if an illegal defense is a defense, I disagree with the majority's argument that Mechanical's violation of the Wage Act was "wholly irrelevant." Op. at 144 of 226 Ill. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Corcoran v. Lehigh & Franklin Coal Co.
neutral
1 sentence1914Corcoran v. Lehigh & Franklin Coal Co., 138 Ill. 390 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Baker v. Baker
green
1 sentence1914This conclusion is in accord with Baker v. Baker, 258 Ill. 418 , where it is said: “By serving the notice claiming a lien the attorney in effect becomes a joint claimant with his client in any judgment or decree that may be rendered or in the proceeds of any settlement that may be made by the client, and to the extent of the amount of his fee has the same interest in such proceeds, judgment or decree as his client and is entitled to his pro rata share thereof. ’ ’ Appellant also claims that the entire contract between the attorneys and their client is void because it contains an illegal clause | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.