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.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 52 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 Robidoux v. Oliphant.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robidoux v. Oliphant Anchor | green | “it is necessary that there be strict compliance with rule 191(a) 'to insure that trial judges are presented with valid evidentiary facts upon which to base a decision.” | 19 |
| 2 | City of Springfield v. West Koke Mill Development Corp. | green | “is to provide compensation that is 'just' in the sense that it places the landowner in the same economic position after the condemnation as before.” | 9 |
| 3 | Village of Bartonville v. Lopez | green | “summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter…” | 8 |
| 4 | Evans v. Brown | green | “the purpose of a summary-judgment proceeding is not to try an issue of fact but, instead, to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.” | 6 |
| 5 | Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Hoke | green | “given the technical and particularized process employed to calculate the just compensation that a condemnor should provide for its interest in a condemnee's property, a condemnation proceeding essentially becomes a contest on the credibility of the parties' experts.” | 6 |
| 6 | Essig v. Advocate Bromenn Medical Center | green | “the contents of rule 213(f) disclosures are not evidence for purposes of summary judgment because rule 213(f) disclosures are not pleadings, depositions, admissions, or affidavits.” | 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.