Legal Opinion
Swann & Weiskopf, Ltd. v. Meed Associates, Inc.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided April 29, 1999No. 1-98-3496PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wolfson
Confronted with the claim that its contribution counts were barred by the statute of limitations, Swann & Weiskopf, Ltd. (Swann), offers two reasons why its action against Meed Associates, Inc. (Meed), should survive — the discovery rule and the equitable estoppel doctrine. Neither works. We affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Meed.
FACTS
In 1985, Swann agreed to provide design services for S.B. Holdings at the Libertyville Manor Extended Care Facility. Swann subcontracted Bernard Orzechowski (Orzechowski) and his company, Meed, to design a storm water removal system for…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Purtill v. HessIllinois Supreme Court · 1986
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1992
- Nolan v. Johns-Manville AsbestosIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & MayerIllinois Supreme Court · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hollander, Jacque v. Brown, JamesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Continental Casualty Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2002
- Lama v. PreskillAppellate Court of Illinois · 2004
- Harris v. Old Kent BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 2000
- Newell v. NewellAppellate Court of Illinois · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.