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 8 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 Peregrine Financials & Securities v. Hakakha.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peregrine Financials & Securities v. Hakakha Anchor | green | “are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court was correct in granting or denying the relief requested.” | 5 |
| 2 | Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC. | green | “the illinois supreme court has recently ruled that another consumer protection statute does not prohibit binding arbitration agreements.” | 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.