ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/6-109 (2026)

Allegations in complaint

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/6-109) (from Ch. 110, par. 6-109)
    Sec. 6-109. Allegations in complaint. It shall be sufficient for the plaintiff to allege in the complaint that (on some day therein to be specified, and which shall be after his or her title accrued), he or she was possessed of the premises involved (describing them as hereinafter provided), and, being so possessed thereof, that the defendant afterwards (on some day to be stated) entered into such premises, and that he or she unlawfully withholds from the plaintiff the possession thereof, to his or her damage any nominal sum the plaintiff deems proper to state.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2022 · leading case: Kissoon v. Vlcek, 2022 IL App (1st) 210488, 210 N.E.3d 158.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kissoon v. Vlcek, 2022 IL App (1st) 210488, 210 N.E.3d 158. “735 ILCS 5/6-109 (West 2018). However, “[i]t is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove an actual entry under title, nor the actual receipt of any of the profits of the premises demanded; but it shall be sufficient for the plaintiff to prove a right to the possession of such…”
J&B Signs, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 2021 IL App (1st) 201005-U. · cites it 2× “See 735 ILCS 5/6-109 (West 2014). A simple footnote or paragraph in the third and fourth amended complaints notifying ComEd and the trial court that plaintiffs were preserving the trespass count for appeal, in addition to the ejectment count, would have been sufficient to avoid…”
Parks v. Parks, 2019 IL App (3d) 170845. · cites it 2× “They contend that they have the prima facie title to the Parks Farm necessary to bring a claim for ejectment against defendants under section 6-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/6-109 (West 2016)). Plaintiffs also argue that (1) their claim is not barred by laches,…”
Avenaim v. Lubecke (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Avenaim maintained, in his complaint for possession filed September 20, 2002, pursuant to the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (Act) (735 ILCS 5/6-109 (West 2000)), that the transaction was a lease between him and defendants with an option to purchase.”
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.