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 2006–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boub v. Township of Wayne
green
2 sentences2009The supreme court cited the rule that it could determine by looking at the property itself whether a plaintiffs use of the property was permitted or intended (Boub, 183 Ill. 2d at 525 ) before concluding that the nature of the bridge, which bore no indications “that would suggest that it was intended for use by bicycles” (Boub, 183 Ill. 2d at 528 ), demonstrated that the plaintiff was not an intended user. 2009The supreme court cited the rule that it could determine by looking at the property itself whether a plaintiffs use of the property was permitted or intended (Boub, 183 Ill. 2d at 525 ) before concluding that the nature of the bridge, which bore no indications “that would suggest that it was intended for use by bicycles” (Boub, 183 Ill. 2d at 528 ), demonstrated that the plaintiff was not an intended user. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co.
green
2 sentences2006The supreme court cited the rule from Roggenbuck and held that "it was the duty of the trial court to allow [the] plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a count under the Wage Act." Clemons II, 202 Ill.2d at 354 , 269 Ill.Dec. 882 , 781 N.E.2d 1072 . 2006The supreme court cited the rule from Roggenbuck and held that "it was the duty of the trial court to allow [the] plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a count under the Wage Act." Clemons II, 202 Ill.2d at 354 , 269 Ill.Dec. 882 , 781 N.E.2d 1072 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Kenny Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District
green
1 sentence2011Kenny, 52 Ill. 2d at 199 . ¶ 39 In Stahelin, as here, the municipal body had the general power to enter into the contract at issue, as well as the power to authorize expenditures for extra work. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.