ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/13-217 (2026)

Reversal or dismissal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/13-217) (from Ch. 110, par. 13-217)
    (Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 13-217. Reversal or dismissal. In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if judgment is entered for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal, or if there is a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the judgment is entered against the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or entered against the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue. No action which is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff or dismissed for want of prosecution by the court may be filed where the time for commencing the action has expired.
    This amendatory Act of 1995 applies to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
 
    (Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 13-217. Reversal or dismissal. In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if judgment is entered for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal, or if there is a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the judgment is entered against the plaintiff, or the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or entered against the plaintiff, or after the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, or the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue.
(Source: P.A. 87-1252.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 303 cases (73 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Hudson v. City of Chicago, 889 N.E.2d 210 (Ill. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hudson v. City of Chicago, 889 N.E.2d 210 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 5× “the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for improper venue, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action…”
Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, 2016 IL 119518 (Ill. 2016). · cites it 3× “The court agreed with plaintiffs that the limitations savings statute (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)) permitted the refiled action.”
Mabry v. Boler, 2012 IL App (1st) 111464 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Farmers Insurance argues that: (1) the circuit court erred in dismissing with prejudice the negligence complaint because it was a timely refiled cause of action under section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)); and (2) alternatively,…”
Sidney Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 986 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “19-2592 13 doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) and 735 ILCS 5/2-616 could not save the claims because that doctrine only applies to amendments of existing complaints, not new causes of action.”
Eighner v. Tiernan, 2021 IL 126101 (Ill. 2021). · cites it 4× “OPINION ¶1 The principal issue presented in this appeal is whether the phrase “may commence a new action” in section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)) 1 refers to a new lawsuit, with a new case 1 Section 13-217 was amended by Public Act…”
Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, 2016 IL 119518 (Ill. 2016). · cites it 4× “The court agreed with plaintiffs that the limitations savings statute (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994)) permitted the refiled action.”
People v. Simms, 2018 IL 122378 (Ill. 2018). · cites it 6× “n 122-5 of the Post-Conviction *1100 *557 Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2014) ) nor section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994) ) authorizes "reinstatement" of petitioner's withdrawn postconviction petition, that petitioner's…”
S.C. Vaughan Oil Co. v. Caldwell, Troutt & Alexander, 693 N.E.2d 338 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 4× “Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether a trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' case for want of prosecution constitutes a final and appealable order upon expiration of plaintiffs' opportunity to refile the case pursuant to…”
Bryson v. News Am. Publications, Inc., 672 N.E.2d 1207 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 2× “Clair County in June 1992, pursuant to section 13-217 of the Limitations Act (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1992)). That section provides: "In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if * * *…”
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Sigler, 2020 IL App (1st) 191006 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15, appeals from an order of the circuit court that granted a motion by the defendants, Eyal Sigler and Lee Sigler (the Siglers), to dismiss Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action for violating section 13-217 of the…”
In re Est. of Young, 2020 IL App (2d) 190392 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “19-L- 175) pursuant to section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2018)) and, thus, the motion to vacate as to that complaint, he argued, should be withdrawn as moot.”
Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “1 (“These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature[.”
Show all 303 citing cases →
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.