ILCS » Chapter 805 · Act 305
Illinois Compiled Statutes

805 ILCS 305/5 (2026)

Each individual licensed in this State to perform professional services who is employed by a professional association shall remain subject to reprimand or discipline for his conduct under the provisions of the licensing statute pursuant to which he is licensed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(805 ILCS 305/5) (from Ch. 106 1/2, par. 105)
    Sec. 5. Each individual licensed in this State to perform professional services who is employed by a professional association shall remain subject to reprimand or discipline for his conduct under the provisions of the licensing statute pursuant to which he is licensed.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 3061.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2000 · leading case: Kapinus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 738 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kapinus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 738 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “The court distinguished Chester and Obenland by noting that the purpose of the workers’ compensation setoff was to simulate the reimbursement required by the Workers’ Compensation Act (805 ILCS 305/5(b) (West 1992)). Thus, the court explained, the workers’ compensation setoff…”
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 841 (N.D. Ill. 1998). · cites it 2× “805 ILCS 305/5(b). Given Montgomery’s status as statutory lienholder, and its right of intervention, Verto contends that strict application of the statute of limitations here would work a grave injustice.”
— 805 ILCS 305/5(b) — 2 cases
Kapinus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 738 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “The court distinguished Chester and Obenland by noting that the purpose of the workers’ compensation setoff was to simulate the reimbursement required by the Workers’ Compensation Act (805 ILCS 305/5(b) (West 1992)). Thus, the court explained, the workers’ compensation setoff…”
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 841 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “805 ILCS 305/5(b). Given Montgomery’s status as statutory lienholder, and its right of intervention, Verto contends that strict application of the statute of limitations here would work a grave injustice.”
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.