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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 14 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 International Harvester v. Industrial Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | International Harvester v. Industrial Commission Anchor | green | “a chain of events which demonstrates a previous condition of good health, an accident, and a subsequent injury resulting in disability may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a causal nexus between the accident and the employee's injury.” | 6 |
| 2 | Hosteny v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission | green | “in resolving questions of fact, it is within the province of the commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence, assign weight to be accorded the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” | 4 |
| 3 | Westin Hotel v. INDUS. COM'N OF ILLINOIS | green | “the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the commission's finding, not whether this court or any other might reach an opposite conclusion.” | 4 |
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.