7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 23 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 Bombliss v. Cornelsen.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bombliss v. Cornelsen Anchor | green | “the type of internet activity that is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction remains an emerging area of jurisprudence.” | 4 |
| 2 | Jago v. Miller Fluid Power Corp. | green | “the parties to a contract may incorporate by reference another document if that intention is clearly shown on the face of the contract.” | 4 |
| 3 | Zazove v. Pelikan, Inc. | green | “in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, reaching out to illinois residents, whether by mail, telephone, telex or facsimile, with an intent to affect illinois interests, can be a sufficient basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” | 3 |
| 4 | Wiggen v. Wiggen | green | “affiliations with the state in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the forum state.” | 3 |
| 5 | Khan v. Gramercy Advisors, LLC | green | “only a trivial, formalistic distinction can be made between someone who utters a fraudulent misrepresentation in person and someone who does so on the phone.” | 3 |
| 6 | Levin v. Posen Foundation | green | “must consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 3 |
| 7 | Monco v. Zoltek Corp. | green | “email communications directed at plaintiff in illinois related to the fraud, combined with plaintiffs' injury in illinois, established specific personal jurisdiction.” | 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.