ILCS » Chapter 215 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

215 ILCS 5/500-108 (2026)

(Repealed)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 5/500-108)
    Sec. 500-108. (Repealed).
(Source: P.A. 98-1165, eff. 6-1-15. Repealed by P.A. 102-212, eff. 10-28-21.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2021 · leading case: Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 3× “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). In dismissing the first amended complaint, the Court concluded that plaintiff had not alleged a plausible violation of the statute, because plaintiff had not alleged that United was required to be licensed and had not alleged that United “solicit[ed]”…”
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2019). “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). Defendant also relies on this portion of the statute in arguing that its conduct falls within ICFA’s safe-harbor provision for “[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory…”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-108(a) — 2 cases
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2019). “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). Defendant also relies on this portion of the statute in arguing that its conduct falls within ICFA’s safe-harbor provision for “[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory…”
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). In dismissing the first amended complaint, the Court concluded that plaintiff had not alleged a plausible violation of the statute, because plaintiff had not alleged that United was required to be licensed and had not alleged that United “solicit[ed]”…”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-108(d)(5) — 1 case
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). In dismissing the first amended complaint, the Court concluded that plaintiff had not alleged a plausible violation of the statute, because plaintiff had not alleged that United was required to be licensed and had not alleged that United “solicit[ed]”…”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-108(g) — 1 case
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). “215 ILCS 5/500-108(a). In dismissing the first amended complaint, the Court concluded that plaintiff had not alleged a plausible violation of the statute, because plaintiff had not alleged that United was required to be licensed and had not alleged that United “solicit[ed]”…”
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.