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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 19 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 Tatum C. Singletary v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tatum C. Singletary v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago Anchor | green | “permits a plaintiff to sue after the statute of limitations has expired if through no fault or lack of diligence on his part he was unable to sue before, even though the defendant took no active steps to prevent him from suing.” | 14 |
| 2 | Smith v. City of Chicago Heights | green | “focuses on whether the defendant acted affirmatively to stop or delay the plaintiff from bringing suit within the limitations period.” | 5 |
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.