purpose of establishing standard (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

purpose of establishing standard in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2024 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Woodsgreen
illappct · 2024 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See People v. Woods, 2024 IL App (3d) 230592, ¶ 31 (“this court is not a depository into which the parties may dump the burden of argument and research”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Heuerman v. B & M Construction, Inc. green
illappct · 2005
2 sentences

2012Nothing in Brandt compels a different result than the one we have already reached. ¶ 29 Next, plaintiff cites to Heuerman, 358 Ill.App.3d at 1165 , 295 Ill.Dec. 549 , 833 N.E.2d 382 , apparently for the purpose of establishing the rule that determining whether goods or services predominate in a contract is generally a question of fact. *454 While this may be a helpful point to establish in a case involving the dismissal of an action pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, it does nothing to contradict the cases that hold that a dispositive motion is an appropriate vehicle for settling a case in

2012Nothing in Brandt compels a different result than the one we have already reached. ¶ 29 Next, plaintiff cites to Heuerman, 358 Ill.App.3d at 1165 , 295 Ill.Dec. 549 , 833 N.E.2d 382 , apparently for the purpose of establishing the rule that determining whether goods or services predominate in a contract is generally a question of fact. *454 While this may be a helpful point to establish in a case involving the dismissal of an action pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, it does nothing to contradict the cases that hold that a dispositive motion is an appropriate vehicle for settling a case in

12012–2012
Avery v. Moews Seed Corn Co. green
illappct · 1971
2 sentences

1974In Avery v. Moews Seed Com Co., 131 Ill.App.2d 842 , 268 N.E.2d 56 .1, the rules were held admissible into evidence in an action for personal injuries for the purpose of establishing a standard of care, although the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant In Merchants National Bank v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry.

1974App.2d 842 , 268 N.E.2d 561 , the rules were held admissible into evidence in an action for personal injuries for the purpose of establishing a standard of care, although the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant.

11974–1974
Merchants Nat. Bk. v. EJ & E. RY. CO. green
ill · 1971
2 sentences

1974Co., 49 Ill.2d 118 , 273 N.E.2d 809 , standards of the Department of Public Works and Buildings for grade-crossing protection were held admissible in an action for wrongful death, although such standards were not adopted by the Illinois Commerce Commission and were not binding upon the railroad.

1974Co., 49 Ill.2d 118 , 273 N.E.2d 809 , standards of the Department of Public Works and Buildings for grade-crossing protection were held admissible in an action for wrongful death, although such standards were not adopted by the Illinois Commerce Commission and were not binding upon the railroad.

11974–1974
In Re Estate of Brumshagen green
illappct · 1960
1 sentence

1969A judgment of a trial court should not be set aside if there is evidence in the record which supports the decision (In re Estate of Brumshagen, 27 Ill App2d 14, 169 NE2d 112 ).

11969–1969
Kingsbury v. Powers green
ill · 1889
1 sentence

1896Cheney v. Roodhouse, supra; Kingsbury v. Powers, 131 Ill. 182 .

11896–1896

Where else courts name it

MI 8 (1892–2021) TX 8 (1896–2015) NY 7 (1850–2016) GA 6 (1924–2018) IL 5 (1896–2024) CA 5 (1922–2017) IN 5 (1998–2014) OH 4 (1982–2007) AZ 3 (1985–2021) NE 3 (1897–1931) VA 3 (1990–2016) MA 2 (1995–2009) SD 2 (1912–1981) OK 2 (1857–1925) MD 2 (1996–2005) OR 2 (1944–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check