Legal Opinion
Ahmad v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided January 19, 1990No. 89 C 7694PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
The motion of defendant, Allied Products Corporation, to dismiss Count II of plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the claim contained in Count II is barred by the exclusive remedies provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, ¶ 138.5(a),1 is denied.
On a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint as well as the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them are taken as true. Doe v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 788 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1986). The plaintiff need not set out in detail the facts upon which a claim is based, but must allege…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- B. Doe, M.D., on Behalf of B. Doe and B. Doe's Patients v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Fort WayneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Carl Sandburg Village Condominium Association No. 1, Plaintiffs v. First Condominium Development Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Joseph A. Mescall v. Clark BurrusCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
- Theodore Papapetropoulous v. Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Martin v. Kralis Poultry Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ahmad v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1991