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 2 courts 1932–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins
green
2 sentences1982That the tortfeasor uninsured motorist in an action brought against him might be in a position to invoke a defense of limitation or some form of statutory immunity is relevant to the question of the right to enforce payment, but does not affect the claimant’s legal entitlement to recovery.” (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 384, 390 .) Finally, the Allstate court found that in executing the insurance contract, it could not have been the intent of the parties “that the [family] exclusion [clause] invoke the uninsured motorist coverage and at the same time preclude recover by 1982That the tortfeasor uninsured motorist in an action brought against him might be in a position to invoke a defense of limitation or some form of statutory immunity is relevant to the question of the right to enforce payment, but does not affect the claimant’s legal entitlement to recovery.” (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 384, 390 .) Finally, the Allstate court found that in executing the insurance contract, it could not have been the intent of the parties “that the [family] exclusion [clause] invoke the uninsured motorist coverage and at the same time preclude recover by | 2 | 1982–1997 |
Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1997In interpreting the provisions of an insurance policy the intent of the parties is the most significant factor and any ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured. ( Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. (1979), 76 Ill.2d 11 [, 27 Ill.Dec. 742 , 389 N.E.2d 1150 ].)" Elkins, 77 Ill.2d at 390-91 , 33 Ill.Dec. at 142 , 396 N.E.2d at 531 . 1997In interpreting the provisions of an insurance policy the intent of the parties is the most significant factor and any ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured. ( Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. (1979), 76 Ill.2d 11 [, 27 Ill.Dec. 742 , 389 N.E.2d 1150 ].)" Elkins, 77 Ill.2d at 390-91 , 33 Ill.Dec. at 142 , 396 N.E.2d at 531 . | 2 | 1979–1997 |
Taylor v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence1980Ed. 2d 690 , 95 S. Ct. 692 , where the United States Supreme Court held the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross-section of the community is an essential component of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial.] Moreover, even if we consider only the defendant who believes himself in a position to invoke the exception suggested in Swain, we see that his attempt to comply with the federal standard of proof is bound to fail. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Newman v. Willetts
green
1 sentence1932(Newman v. Willetts, 52 Ill. 98 .) But plaintiff in error is not in a position to invoke this rule because the objection now raised was not presented by demurrer, plea or answer. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.