Legal Opinion

Bombliss v. Cornelsen

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 25, 2005No. 3-04-0056PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McDADE

Plaintiff dog breeders, Ronald E and Catherine E. Bombliss, filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging that the defendant dog breeders, Anne and Jim Cornelsen and Judy Nowland, committed tortious interference with prospective business advantage, defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Cornelsens, residents of Oklahoma, and Nowland, a resident of Washington, filed special and limited appearances and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The trial court granted their motions, and plaintiffs appeal from…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Kostal v. Pinkus Dermatopathology Laboratory, P.C.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  2. Keller v. HendersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  3. Richter v. INSTAR Enterprises International, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
  4. Wesly v. National Hemophilia FoundationAppellate Court of Illinois · 2020
  5. Larochelle v. AllamianAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005

18 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