410 ILCS 45/1
Short title
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(410 ILCS 45/1)
(from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1301)
Sec. 1.
Short title.
This Act may be cited
as the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act.
(Source: P.A. 87-175.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n
Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n (2020)
“Plaintiffs sought to recover the costs of blood lead screening, which their children underwent as required by the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Act) (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 2000)). The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.”
People v. Ward (2005)
“(West 2002) (Surgical Institute for Children Act); 410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 2002) (Lead Poisoning Prevention Act); 410 ILCS 205/1 et seq.”
Abbasi Ex Rel. Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos (1999)
“The circuit court struck those counts of the complaint that alleged private causes of action based on defendants' violations of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Act) (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 1996)) and several chapters of the Chicago Municipal Code (City Code) (Chicago…”
Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc. (2003)
“hat the risk of poisoning from exposure to lead pigments in paint such as that promoted and supplied by the defendants is so significant that it has become medically necessary that all children six months through six years of age residing in the State of Illinois be either…”
Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos (2010)
“2d at 395-96 (a common-law negligence action effectively implemented the policy behind the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 1996)), so it was not necessary to imply a private right of action).”
Price v. Hickory Point Bank & Trust (2006)
“In that case, our supreme court held that the plaintiffs did not have a private cause of action under the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1 through 17 (West 1996)) or Chicago’s city code.”
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (2001)
“This complaint was based upon negligence, as well as violations of the Chicago Municipal Code (Chicago Municipal Code § 5—12—110 (amended November 6, 1991), § 13—196—540(d) (1990), §§ 7—4—030, 7—4—110 (added November 5, 1993)) and the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1…”
Goodman v. Goodman (2023)
“2d 386, 393-96 (1999) (no implied private right of action under the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 1996)) since, in addition to several remedies provided by the Act, the common law provided an adequate remedy in the form of a negligence action).”
Tunca v. Painter (2012)
“2d 181, 185-86 (1999), that there was no implied private right of action under the Lead Poison Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 1996)), since the common law provided an adequate remedy in the form of a negligence action.”
City of Chicago v. American Cyanamid Co. (2005)
“Moreover, the legislature has enacted the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 2000)), which places the responsibility upon landowners to remediate the effects of deteriorated lead-based paint.”
Lewis v. NL Industries, Inc. (2013)
“n by alleging that “the risk of poisoning from exposure to lead pigments in paint such as that promoted and supplied by the defendants is so significant that it has become medically necessary that all children six months through six years of age residing in the State of Illinois…”
Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos (1998)
“Counts I and V were directed against Panagiotis and Katina Paraskevoulakos, respectively, sounding in negligence and alleging as proof of negligence violations of the Illinois Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (the Act) (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq.”
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.
|