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 1968–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bates v. Richland Sales Corp.green2 sentences2007Bates v. Richland Sales Corp., 346 Ill. 2007Bates v. Richland Sales Corp., 346 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974This court so held in Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc., 68 Ill.App.2d 70 , 215 N.E.2d 465 .” Although the supreme court reversed our holding in Williams it stated that: “* * * it is clear that plaintiffs complaint was sufficient notwithstanding the absence of an allegation that he exercised due care.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 427 , 261 N.E.2d at 310 .) The supreme court had, previously, described plaintiffs complaint as “an action against defendant under a theory of strict product liability in tort, essentially alleging an unreasonably dangerous design # * *.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 420 , 261 N.E.2d at 306 .) In a 1974This court so held in Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc., 68 Ill.App.2d 70 , 215 N.E.2d 465 .” Although the supreme court reversed our holding in Williams it stated that: “* * * it is clear that plaintiffs complaint was sufficient notwithstanding the absence of an allegation that he exercised due care.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 427 , 261 N.E.2d at 310 .) The supreme court had, previously, described plaintiffs complaint as “an action against defendant under a theory of strict product liability in tort, essentially alleging an unreasonably dangerous design # * *.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 420 , 261 N.E.2d at 306 .) In a | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1974This court so held in Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc., 68 Ill.App.2d 70 , 215 N.E.2d 465 .” Although the supreme court reversed our holding in Williams it stated that: “* * * it is clear that plaintiffs complaint was sufficient notwithstanding the absence of an allegation that he exercised due care.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 427 , 261 N.E.2d at 310 .) The supreme court had, previously, described plaintiffs complaint as “an action against defendant under a theory of strict product liability in tort, essentially alleging an unreasonably dangerous design # * *.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 420 , 261 N.E.2d at 306 .) In a 1974This court so held in Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc., 68 Ill.App.2d 70 , 215 N.E.2d 465 .” Although the supreme court reversed our holding in Williams it stated that: “* * * it is clear that plaintiffs complaint was sufficient notwithstanding the absence of an allegation that he exercised due care.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 427 , 261 N.E.2d at 310 .) The supreme court had, previously, described plaintiffs complaint as “an action against defendant under a theory of strict product liability in tort, essentially alleging an unreasonably dangerous design # * *.” ( 45 Ill.2d at 420 , 261 N.E.2d at 306 .) In a | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co.
green
2 sentences1974Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 315 , 229 N.E.2d 684 , affirmed, 42 Ill.2d 339 , 247 N.E.2d 401 ; Rivera v. Rockford Machine & Tool Co., 1 Ill.App. 3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828 . 1974Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 315 , 229 N.E.2d 684 , affirmed, 42 Ill.2d 339 , 247 N.E.2d 401 ; Rivera v. Rockford Machine & Tool Co., 1 Ill.App. 3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Rivera v. Rockford MacHine & Tool Co.
green
1 sentence1974Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 315 , 229 N.E.2d 684 , affirmed, 42 Ill.2d 339 , 247 N.E.2d 401 ; Rivera v. Rockford Machine & Tool Co., 1 Ill.App. 3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co.
green
2 sentences1974Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 315 , 229 N.E.2d 684 , affirmed, 42 Ill.2d 339 , 247 N.E.2d 401 ; Rivera v. Rockford Machine & Tool Co., 1 Ill.App. 3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828 . 1974Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 315 , 229 N.E.2d 684 , affirmed, 42 Ill.2d 339 , 247 N.E.2d 401 ; Rivera v. Rockford Machine & Tool Co., 1 Ill.App. 3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
White v. Jeffrey Galion, Inc.
green
2 sentences1972After surveying the various Illinois decisions in the area of strict liability in tort, the Court held that “an innocent bystander does have a cause of action against a manufacturer under the doctrine of strict liability in tort for a defective product.” ( 326 F.Supp. 751, 755 .) Echoing the sentiments of the California Supreme Court in Elmore, the district court in White declared that: “It seems somewhat incongruous to say that a user or consumer of a product has a right of action against the manufacturer of a defective product, but to withhold protection from an innocent bystander who has su 1972After surveying the various Illinois decisions in the area of strict liability in tort, the Court held that “an innocent bystander does have a cause of action against a manufacturer under the doctrine of strict liability in tort for a defective product.” ( 326 F.Supp. 751, 755 .) Echoing the sentiments of the California Supreme Court in Elmore, the district court in White declared that: “It seems somewhat incongruous to say that a user or consumer of a product has a right of action against the manufacturer of a defective product, but to withhold protection from an innocent bystander who has su | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.