Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp.
Illinois Supreme Court
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
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. AllphinIllinois Supreme Court · 1975
- Brauer MacHine & Supply Co. Ex Rel. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Parkhill Truck Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1943
- Ridgely v. Central Pipe Line Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1951
- Reese v. MelahnIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
- Groves v. Farmers State BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.