Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Lincoln Towers Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Boozell
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided August 22, 1997No. 1-95-4139Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
PRESIDING JUSTICE GREIMAN,
specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s observations with respect to the contract clause in the United States Constitution, but believe that the Illinois statutes vary the meaning of "mutuality” as a condition for the right of setoff.
The elements of mutuality are often repeated in the decisions of the bankruptcy and state courts. See Turner v. Small Business Administration, 59 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 1995); In re Lopes, 197 B.R. 15 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1996); In re County of Orange, 183 B.R. 609 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1995); Stamp v.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Illinois v. Lakeside Community Hospital, Inc. (In Re Lakeside Community Hospital, Inc.)District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
- Zack Stamp, Director of Insurance for the State of Illinois, as Liquidator of Reserve Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. County of Orange (In Re County of Orange)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 1995
- United States v. Maxwell (In Re Pyramid Industries, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- In Re MedinaUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.