6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 31 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Smith v. Airoom, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith v. Airoom, Inc. Anchor | green | “due diligence requires the section 2-1401 petitioner to have a reasonable excuse for failing to act within the appropriate time.” | 10 |
| 2 | Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd. | green | “a trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to apply the proper criteria when it weighs the facts,' and a reviewing court 'must consider both the legal adequacy of the way the trial court reached its result as well as whether the result is within the bounds of reason.” | 7 |
| 3 | Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District v. Walters | green | “a section 2-1401 petition can present either a factual or legal challenge to a final judgment or order. the nature of the challenge presented in a section 2-1401 petition is critical because it dictates the proper standard of review on appeal.” | 4 |
| 4 | Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District v. Walters | green | “the nature of the challenge presented in a section 2-1401 petition is critical because it dictates the proper standard of review on appeal.” | 4 |
| 5 | Gonzalez v. Profile Sanding Equipment, Inc. | green | “although it is true that some decisions have relaxed or even excused the due diligence requirements, courts have only done so in the extraordinary circumstances where it is necessary to prevent an unjust entry of default judgment , or where there is unconscionable conduct by the…” | 3 |
| 6 | European Tanspa, Inc. v. Shrader | green | “although it is true that some decisions have relaxed or even excused the due diligence requirements, courts have only done so in the extraordinary circumstances where it is necessary to prevent an unjust entry of default judgment , or where there is unconscionable conduct by the…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.