Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Roy v. Coyne

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 15, 1994No. 1-91-1363Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Hartman

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While concurring in the result reached by the majority in this case, I find it both unnecessary and undesirable to undertake a "restructuring of the elements of this tort” which the majority purports to do in its pedantic and prolix treatment of this subject. Accordingly, I dissent from this portion of the opinion.

As the majority notes, "[defendants do not contest the adequacy of the complaint as to all elements of this tort. Rather, their arguments on appeal focus only on whether the third amended complaint sufficiently alleged the ’intent’…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Fellhauer v. City of GenevaIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Zamouski v. GerrardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1971
  5. Agrimerica, Inc. v. MathesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1990

1 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