Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jewelers Mutual Insurance v. Firstar Bank Illinois

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 31, 2003No. 1—00—1670, 1—00—1766 consPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE,

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I write to concur only in that portion of the opinion which affirms the dismissal of Vaidya’s negligence count. As to the portion of the opinion that reverses the trial courts’ grant of summary judgment to Firstar, I respectfully dissent.

I would affirm the decision of the trial courts in these consolidated appeals because I believe the rental agreements were not leases of real property subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act (Act) (765 ILCS 705/1 (West 1998)) and the exculpatory clause used in these two agreements…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Martindell v. Lake Shore National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1958
  2. McClure Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Vole, Inc. v. GeorgacopoulosAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
  4. Meyer v. CohenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  5. U S G Corp. v. Sterling Plumbing Group, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1993

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API