ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/2-801 (2026)

Prerequisites for the maintenance of a class action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/2-801) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-801)
    Sec. 2-801. Prerequisites for the maintenance of a class action. An action may be maintained as a class action in any court of this State and a party may sue or be sued as a representative party of the class only if the court finds:
    (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
    (2) There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
    (3) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
    (4) The class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 8× “With regard to the merits, State Farm argues that plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of State Farm's contractual obligation and plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to damages.”
Uesco Indus., Inc. v. Poolman of Wisconsin, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 112566 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “Both counts alleged there were common issues of fact and law warranting class certification pursuant to section 2-801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2008)). On the same date, plaintiff moved for class certification.”
Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (Ill. 2012). · cites it 3× “The class was certified in 2002, but was decertified in 2008, when the circuit court of Cook County determined that a partial summary judgment order entered in 2005 resolved the overriding legal issue, thereby destroying the commonality requirement for a class action because…”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 735 ILCS 5/2-801 et seq. (West 1996). Plaintiff's proposed class was defined as "[a]ll retail purchasers in the United States who purchased Amoco Ultimate and/or Amoco Silver gasoline" during the time the various advertisements ran, from approximately November 6, 1991,…”
Lee v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., 2019 IL App (5th) 180033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 5× “1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the cause of action was being brought on behalf of a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of Federal Rues of Civil Procedure (Fed.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2012). The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the above statutory prerequisites.”
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “Class Certification and Class Representatives On September 8, 2000, plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to section 2-801 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 1998)). A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on November 28,…”
Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 905 N.E.2d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “" Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule *924 306(a)(8) (210 Ill.”
Sundance Homes, Inc. v. Cnty. of Du Page, 746 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 2001). “As the county points out, the Code of Civil Procedure provides the means by which additional parties may be joined in a pending action (735 ILCS 5/2-404 (West 1998)), those interested in the outcome may intervene (735 ILCS 5/2-408 (West 1998)), and a single party may represent a…”
Rubino v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 758 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Whether to certify a class action is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or the application of impermissible legal criteria.”
Aussieker v. City of Bloomington, 822 N.E.2d 927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “However, the class action statutes (735 ILCS 5/2-801 through 2-806 (West 2002)) provide the means for a party to sue as a representative of a class where, among other requirements, the "class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”
Bayeg v. The Admiral at the Lake, 2024 IL App (1st) 231141 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2016). -9- No. 1-23-1141 The party seeking class certification must establish all four requirements.”
Show all 112 citing cases →
— 735 ILCS 5/2-801(1) — 5 cases
Aussieker v. City of Bloomington, 822 N.E.2d 927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “However, the class action statutes (735 ILCS 5/2-801 through 2-806 (West 2002)) provide the means for a party to sue as a representative of a class where, among other requirements, the "class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”
Clark v. Tap Pharm. Prod. Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Aussieker v. City of Bloomington (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Ramirez v. Midway Moving & Storage, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Barber v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 925 N.E.2d 1240 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
— 735 ILCS 5/2-801(2) — 11 cases
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “With regard to the merits, State Farm argues that plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of State Farm's contractual obligation and plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to damages.”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. 2002). “See 735 ILCS 5/2-801 et seq. (West 1996). Plaintiff's proposed class was defined as "[a]ll retail purchasers in the United States who purchased Amoco Ultimate and/or Amoco Silver gasoline" during the time the various advertisements ran, from approximately November 6, 1991,…”
Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (Ill. 2012). “The class was certified in 2002, but was decertified in 2008, when the circuit court of Cook County determined that a partial summary judgment order entered in 2005 resolved the overriding legal issue, thereby destroying the commonality requirement for a class action because…”
Smith v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. - Corr. posted 02/07/06, 363 Ill. App. 3d 944 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Morris v. Weinstein, 2021 IL App (2d) 200512-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 735 ILCS 5/2-801(3) — 8 cases
Uesco Indus., Inc. v. Poolman of Wisconsin, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 112566 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Both counts alleged there were common issues of fact and law warranting class certification pursuant to section 2-801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2008)). On the same date, plaintiff moved for class certification.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2012). The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the above statutory prerequisites.”
Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins., 731 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2013).
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Brewer v. Pepperidge Farm Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 241323-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
— 735 ILCS 5/2-801(4) — 5 cases
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “735 ILCS 5/2-801 (West 2012). The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the above statutory prerequisites.”
Lee v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., 2019 IL App (5th) 180033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the cause of action was being brought on behalf of a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of Federal Rues of Civil Procedure (Fed.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Meier v. Rohrman, 2020 IL App (1st) 192401-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Mele v. Howmedica, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
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.