ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/2-607 (2026)

Bills of particulars

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/2-607) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-607)
    Sec. 2-607. Bills of particulars. (a) Within the time a party is to respond to a pleading, that party may, if allegations are so wanting in details that the responding party should be entitled to a bill of particulars, file and serve a notice demanding it. The notice shall point out specifically the defects complained of or the details desired. The pleader shall have 28 days to file and serve the bill of particulars, and the party who requested the bill shall have 28 days to plead after being served with the bill.
    (b) If the pleader does not file and serve a bill of particulars within 28 days of the demand, or if the bill of particulars delivered is insufficient, the court may, on motion and in its discretion, strike the pleading, allow further time to furnish the bill of particulars or require a more particular bill to be filed and served.
    (c) If a bill of particulars, in an action based on a contract, contains the statement of items of indebtedness and is verified by oath, the items thereof are admitted except in so far as the opposite party files an affidavit specifically denying them, and as to each item denied states the facts upon which the denial is based, unless the affidavit is excused by the court.
    (d) If the party on whom a demand for a bill of particulars has been made believes that the party demanding it is not entitled to the particulars asked for, he or she may move the court that the demand be denied or modified.
(Source: P.A. 86-646.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case: Bolden v. Summers, 181 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bolden v. Summers, 181 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “1990); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-607(a) (defining a counterclaim by defendant against plaintiff as a species of cross claim).”
City of Highland Park v. Fogel-Pollack, 2023 IL App (2d) 220336 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” -2- 2023 IL App (2d) 220336 Defendant asked the court to dismiss the citation with prejudice, pursuant to section 2-615, or, alternatively, to dismiss it without prejudice, pursuant to sections 2-607 and 2-612 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-607, 2-612 (West…”
Lessmeister v. The City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221047-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “” 735 ILCS 5/2-607 (West 2018). -2- No. 1-22-1047 defects appear to contain crumbled pavement, dirt, and cigarette butts.”
Mayne Gate Creek, LLC v. HG Recovery Fund 1, LLC, 2023 IL App (1st) 221433-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “After HG Recovery and Duggan filed a demand for bill of particulars pursuant to section 2-607 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-607 (West 2020)), Mayne Gate and Lann were granted leave to file a verified first amended complaint (amended complaint).”
Berge v. Kosman, 2023 IL App (3d) 220059-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “Berge’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars ¶ 15 Before the hearing on the disciplinary charges, Berge moved for a bill of particulars, citing section 2-607 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-607 (West 2020)). He asserted the disciplinary charges “fail[ed] to…”
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hill Mech. Grp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Nothing in the 1999 complaint or the 1999 counterclaim, Casualty maintains, demonstrated that the generalized allegations of claims mishandling had any good faith factual basis in Casualty's actual practices or were grounded in real occurrences.”
In re John Paul J. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “, 308 Ill. App. 3d 227 , 234, 719 N.E.2d 348 (1999).”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-607(a) — 2 cases
Bolden v. Summers, 181 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “1990); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-607(a) (defining a counterclaim by defendant against plaintiff as a species of cross claim).”
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hill Mech. Grp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Nothing in the 1999 complaint or the 1999 counterclaim, Casualty maintains, demonstrated that the generalized allegations of claims mishandling had any good faith factual basis in Casualty's actual practices or were grounded in real occurrences.”
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.