Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Christian v. Lincoln Automotive Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 26, 2010No. 3-09-0689Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Schmidt

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the public policy favoring adjudication of controversies on the merits is not an appropriate factor for consideration in objectively determining whether plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence to obtain service on defendants.

I further agree that plaintiffs failure to issue summons for more than one year after the expiration of the statute of limitations, without any explanation for failing to do so earlier, constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law and, therefore, Pentair must be dismissed with prejudice under Supreme Court Rule…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. OrtegaIllinois Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Segal v. SaccoIllinois Supreme Court · 1990
  3. People v. LongoriaAppellate Court of Illinois · 2007
  4. Domingo v. GuarinoAppellate Court of Illinois · 2010
  5. Jacobo v. VANDERVEREAppellate Court of Illinois · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API