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 2017–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nissenson v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2017AACC cites Nissenson v. Bradley, 316 Ill. 2017AACC cites Nissenson v. Bradley, 316 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Kazubowski v. Kazubowskigreen1 sentence2022App. 3d 693, 698 (1978) (“Courts will not permit parties to relitigate the merits of an issue once decided by an appellate court[;] the proper remedy for a dissatisfied party is by petition for rehearing or by petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.”); Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill. 2d 405, 414 (1970) (“A second appeal brings up nothing except proceedings subsequent to the remandment ***.” “[A]ny errors sought to be assigned *** in connection with any proceedings prior to the filing of the mandate after appeal will not be considered by this court.”). 5 No. 21-0803 after | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Access Casualty Company v. Alcauter
neutral
2 sentences2017If an attorney signs a pleading in violation of this rule, the court may sanction either the attorney, the party he represents, or both, “which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading ***, including a reasonable attorney fee.” Id. ¶ 36 The parties dispute the proper standard of review applicable to a trial court’s decision to issue Rule 137 sanctions. 2017If an attorney signs a pleading in violation of this rule, the court may sanction either the attorney, the party he represents, or both, “which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading ***, including a reasonable attorney fee.” Id. ¶ 36 The parties dispute the proper standard of review applicable to a trial court’s decision to issue Rule 137 sanctions. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Abbott Laboratories
green
1 sentence2021(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 45 The parties dispute the proper standard of review. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo
green
1 sentence2019Citing Reliable Fire Equipment Company, 2011 IL 111871 , ¶ 13, defendant contends the trial court made an erroneous ruling of law and, therefore, our review is de novo. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.