5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairsgreen2 sentences2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. 2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphingreen2 sentences2010However, this exception to the common law rule, otherwise known as the Owens-Illinois exception, was modified by this court in Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin, 60 Ill.2d 350, 359 , 326 N.E.2d 737 (1975), which held that the Owens-Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law. 2010However, this exception to the common law rule, otherwise known as the Owens-Illinois exception, was modified by this court in Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin, 60 Ill.2d 350, 359 , 326 N.E.2d 737 (1975), which held that the Owens-Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law. | 2 | 2 |
Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihangreen2 sentences2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. 2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Carle Foundation v. ILLINOIS DEPT. REVENUEgreen2 sentences2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. 2019See Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d at 301-02 (Allphin “held that the Owens- Illinois exception would no longer be applicable to situations covered by the Administrative Review Law”); Christian Action Ministry v. Department of Local Government Affairs, 74 Ill. 2d 51, 59-60 (1978) (Allphin “eliminated the Owens doctrine” and provided that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required “where administrative relief is available”); Carle Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 396 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gillenwater v. Honeywell International, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Echoing its ruling with regard to Pneumo Abex, the court wrote that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant readily admitted at argument that the body of evidence in the instant matter is the same as that in Gillenwater v. Honeywell International, Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120929 .” In that case, which contained the same civil conspiracy claim asserted here, the Fourth District concluded that, when all of the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and all reasonable inferences were drawn in their favor, the evidence so overwhelmingly favored Owens-Illinois and the othe 2019Echoing its ruling with regard to Pneumo Abex, the court wrote that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant readily admitted at argument that the body of evidence in the instant matter is the same as that in Gillenwater v. Honeywell International, Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120929 .” In that case, which contained the same civil conspiracy claim asserted here, the Fourth District concluded that, when all of the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and all reasonable inferences were drawn in their favor, the evidence so overwhelmingly favored Owens-Illinois and the othe | 2 | 2019–2021 |
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.