Legal Opinion
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Conry
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided May 4, 2001No. 3—00—0252, 3—00—0253 consPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breslin
The defendants, Dayna Conry and Mary Plotts, failed to make payments for consumer goods that they purchased from Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears) on Sears credit card accounts. After the defendants’ debts were discharged in bankruptcy, Sears sued to take possession of its collateral, asserting that it had a purchase money security interest in the merchandise. 810 ILCS 5/9—107 (West 1998). The trial court ruled Sears had failed to prove that the defendants entered into a security agreement with Sears. Sears’ motion to reconsider was denied. We reverse and hold that a security interest was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Zeitz v. Village of GlenviewAppellate Court of Illinois · 1999
- In Re TilleryUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1991
- In Re HardageUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1989
- Matter of WiegertUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · 1991
- In Re HanceUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Portfolio Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. FeltmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2009
- Helms v. Certified Packaging Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Barnes v. Northwest Repossession, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Helms v. Certified Packaging Corp. (In Re Sarah Michaels, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
- Covey v. Morton Community Bank (In Re Sabol)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.