ILCS » Chapter 210 · Act 40
Illinois Compiled Statutes

210 ILCS 40/3 (2026)

After July 1, 1982, no person may enter into a life care contract as a provider, or as a provider extend the term of an existing life care contract except pursuant to a permit obtained in accordance with this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(210 ILCS 40/3) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 4160-3)
    Sec. 3. After July 1, 1982, no person may enter into a life care contract as a provider, or as a provider extend the term of an existing life care contract except pursuant to a permit obtained in accordance with this Act.
(Source: P.A. 82-547.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2005 · leading case: Jackim v. CC-Lake, Inc., 842 N.E.2d 1113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackim v. CC-Lake, Inc., 842 N.E.2d 1113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 210 ILCS 40/3(h) (West 2002). We would have to disregard the legislature’s express definition of the funds at issue in order to grant the residents what they are seeking, which would be improper.”
Antler v. Classic Residence Mgmt. Ltd. P'ship, 733 N.E.2d 393 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “See 210 ILCS 40/3 through 7 (West 1998). On the basis of the foregoing documentation, the Department of Public Health issued defendants a permit to operate as a life care facility and to enter into life care contracts.”
Jackim v. CC-Lake Opinion corrected on 02/10/06 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 210 ILCS 40/3(h) (West 2002). We would have to disregard the legislature's express definition of the funds at issue in order to grant the residents what they are seeking, which would be improper.”
Antler v. Classic Residence Mgt., LP (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “See 210 ILCS 40/3 through 7 (West 1998). On the basis of the foregoing documentation, the Department of Public Health issued defendants a permit to operate as a life care facility and to enter into life care contracts.”
— 210 ILCS 40/3(h) — 2 cases
Jackim v. CC-Lake, Inc., 842 N.E.2d 1113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 210 ILCS 40/3(h) (West 2002). We would have to disregard the legislature’s express definition of the funds at issue in order to grant the residents what they are seeking, which would be improper.”
Jackim v. CC-Lake Opinion corrected on 02/10/06 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 210 ILCS 40/3(h) (West 2002). We would have to disregard the legislature's express definition of the funds at issue in order to grant the residents what they are seeking, which would be improper.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.