Illinois Compiled Statutes
210 ILCS 90/0.01 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(210 ILCS 90/0.01)
(from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 157-10)
Sec. 0.01.
Short title.
This Act may be cited as the
X-Ray Retention Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1324.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Metzger v. DaRosa, 805 N.E.2d 1165 (Ill. 2004).
Metzger v. DaRosa, 805 N.E.2d 1165 (Ill. 2004). “In Rodgers, after determining that the plaintiff was a member of the class for whose benefit the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq. (West 2000)) was enacted and that plaintiff's injury was one the Act was designed to prevent, this court noted that the Act provides no…”
Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “¶ 147 Denial of Leave to Amend to Add Various Additional Claims ¶ 148 On December 26, 2008, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add claims for spoliation and violations of the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq. (West 2004)) against Dr.”
JACKSON BY JACKSON v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 689 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “Defendant also attacked plaintiffs’ complaint for negligent spoliation of evidence on two other grounds: (1) failure to state a cause of action under the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/ 0.01 et seq. (West 1994)), and (2) failure to sufficiently plead facts that state a cause…”
Cretella v. Azcon, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 211224 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “2d 302, 308 (1992), the court determined that the plaintiff was a member of the class for whose benefit the X-Ray Retention Act (X-Ray Act) (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq. (West 2000)) was enacted and that the plaintiff’s injury, loss of evidence to support his medical malpractice…”
Metzger v. DaRosa (Ill. 2004). “In Rodgers , after determining that the plaintiff was a member of the class for whose benefit the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq . (West 2000)) was enacted and that plaintiff’s injury was one the Act was designed to prevent, this court noted that the Act provides…”
Jackson v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “Defendant also attacked plaintiffs' complaint for negligent spoliation of evidence on two other grounds: (1) failure to state a cause of action under the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq . (West 1994)), and (2) failure to sufficiently plead facts that state a cause…”
Ayon v. Balanoff, 721 N.E.2d 719 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “The first complaint was dismissed, and the trial court granted leave to file an amended complaint, which asserted a claim under the X-Ray Retention Act (210 ILCS 90/0.01 et seq. (West 1994)). That complaint was later dismissed.”
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.
|