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 1981–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Edward Hospitalgreen2 sentences2024Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110 (2004) (referred to as the Sullivan factors). 2024Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100, 110 (2004) (referred to as the Sullivan factors). | 2 | 3 |
Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 180-81 (1978) (the fundamental purpose of the Act is “to afford protection to employees by providing them with prompt and equitable compensation for their injuries”). | 1 | 1 |
Sohaey v. Van Curagreen1 sentence2024See Sohaey v. Van Cura, 158 Ill. 2d 375, 380 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huang v. Uribe
green
2 sentences2024“No single factor is determinative, as each case presents a unique factual situation which must be taken into consideration when determining whether a particular sanction is proper.” Li Jun Huang as Next Friend of Zhaung v. Uribe, 2020 IL App (1st) 192037, ¶ 44 . ¶ 39 Respondent acknowledges that Dr. Joseph was precluded from testifying because she did not make a timely disclosure of him as an expert witness, but argues that the application of the six Sullivan factors compel the conclusion that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Joseph’s testimony. 2024“No single factor is determinative, as each case presents a unique factual situation which must be taken into consideration when determining whether a particular sanction is proper.” Li Jun Huang as Next Friend of Zhaung v. Uribe, 2020 IL App (1st) 192037, ¶ 44 . ¶ 39 Respondent acknowledges that Dr. Joseph was precluded from testifying because she did not make a timely disclosure of him as an expert witness, but argues that the application of the six Sullivan factors compel the conclusion that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Joseph’s testimony. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Johnson v. Board of Junior College District No. 508
green
1 sentence1981The second case, Johnson v. Board of Junior College District No. 508 (1975), 31 Ill. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Rosenblatt v. Baer
green
1 sentence1981Ed. 2d 597 , 86 S. Ct. 669 , the court concluded that a “strong interest in debate on public issues” and a “strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues” made it clear that the teacher-coaches were within the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan rule. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.