815 ILCS 505/10
In any action brought under the provisions of this Act, the Attorney General or the State's Attorney is entitled to recover costs for the use of this State
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/10)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 270)
Sec. 10.
In any action brought under the provisions of this Act, the
Attorney General or the State's Attorney is entitled to recover costs
for the use of this State.
(Source: P.A. 84-748.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Fandel v. Allen
Fandel v. Allen (2010)
“Thus, the Slepians argued that the oral contract was void and therefore could not be the basis of recovery under a mechanic's lien. After a bench trial, the trial court found in CIES's favor with respect to the mechanic's lien, dismissed CIES's additional counts as moot, and…”
Morris v. Harvey Cycle and Camper, Inc. (2009)
“137) and section 10(c) of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/10(c) (West 2006)). Defendant argues plaintiffs allegations were not grounded in fact or existing law and failed to allege a good-faith basis for a change in the law.”
Mulligan v. QVC, Inc. (2008)
“815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 2004). Whereas damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered, damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury.”
K. MILLER CONST. CO., INC. v. McGinnis (2010)
“Public Act 96 — 1023, effective July 12, 2010, has entirely rewritten section 30 of the Act, removing all references to the word “unlawful” and indicating that the remedy for violations of the Act is to be had under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815…”
Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights (2012)
“See 815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 2010) (“Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation of this Act committed by any other person may bring an action against such person.”
Basselen v. General Motors Corp. (2003)
“In that case, this court permitted a plaintiff to recover attorney fees under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/ 10(a) (West 1998)) and let stand an award of fees that included time spent litigating against the holder of a note.”
In Re Estate of Elias (2011)
“However, Catherwood did not address attorney fees at all, and Taylor addressed attorney fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Act) (815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 1996)), which statutorily entitles a prevailing party to attorney fees from the…”
Quick & Reilly, Inc. v. Zielinski (1999)
“The court held that it was proper for the arbitrator to rule on the issue of attorney fees as the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 1996)), under which the parties asserted their claims, provided for an award of attorney fees to the…”
Greisz v. Household Bank (Illinois) (1998)
“However, Greisz argues that she is not required to show actual damages because much of her claim accrued in 1995, before the 1996 amendment was enacted. In Latona , Judge Holderman concluded that “the amendment implies that ‘actual’ damages were not required before 1996 because…”
Garcia v. Overload Bond & Investment Co. (1996)
“However, that directive pertains only to section 2, which defines unlawful and deceptive practices. Section 10(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act, which grants private rights of action against "any person” who violates the Act, does not refer to the decisions of federal courts.”
White & Brewer Trucking, Inc. v. Donley (1997)
“Title 815 ILCS 505/l(a) now states that “proof of pubUc injury, a pattern, or an effect on consumers and the pubUc interest generaUy shaU be required in order to state a cause of action under this Section against a party defendant who is a new vehicle dealer or used vehicle…”
Clevenger v. Bolingbrook Chevrolet, Inc. (2005)
“Clevenger’s attorney sent Bolingbrook a letter on May 21, 2003, charging them with violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/10, and demanding $35,000 in damages and revocation of the purchase contracts.”
— 815 ILCS 505/10(a) — 22 cases
Fandel v. Allen (2010)
“Thus, the Slepians argued that the oral contract was void and therefore could not be the basis of recovery under a mechanic's lien. After a bench trial, the trial court found in CIES's favor with respect to the mechanic's lien, dismissed CIES's additional counts as moot, and…”
Mulligan v. QVC, Inc. (2008)
“815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 2004). Whereas damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered, damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury.”
K. MILLER CONST. CO., INC. v. McGinnis (2010)
“Public Act 96 — 1023, effective July 12, 2010, has entirely rewritten section 30 of the Act, removing all references to the word “unlawful” and indicating that the remedy for violations of the Act is to be had under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815…”
Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights (2012)
“See 815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 2010) (“Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation of this Act committed by any other person may bring an action against such person.”
Basselen v. General Motors Corp. (2003)
“In that case, this court permitted a plaintiff to recover attorney fees under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/ 10(a) (West 1998)) and let stand an award of fees that included time spent litigating against the holder of a note.”
— 815 ILCS 505/10(a)(e) — 1 case
— 815 ILCS 505/10(b) — 2 cases
Cripe v. Leiter (1997)
Cripe v. Leiter (1997)
— 815 ILCS 505/10(b)(1) — 2 cases
— 815 ILCS 505/10(c) — 1 case
Morris v. Harvey Cycle and Camper, Inc. (2009)
“137) and section 10(c) of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/10(c) (West 2006)). Defendant argues plaintiffs allegations were not grounded in fact or existing law and failed to allege a good-faith basis for a change in the law.”
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.
|