Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp.

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1992No. 71813, 71815Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Bilandic

I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which establishes a single standard for enjoining the prosecution of a foreign cause of action. I also concur in the majority’s holding in the Daiwa Bank appeal. I believe, however, that this court should not countenance the behavior of Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) in the Skyline appeal. Because the majority’s decision in the Skyline appeal enables a litigant to circumvent substantive rulings by an Illinois trial court, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s decision.

The circumstances of the Skyline appeal are as follows.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. AllphinIllinois Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Brauer MacHine & Supply Co. Ex Rel. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Parkhill Truck Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Ridgely v. Central Pipe Line Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Reese v. MelahnIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Groves v. Farmers State BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1937

9 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