Legal Opinion

Yokel v. Hite

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 6, 2004No. 5-02-0674PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRESIDING JUSTICE CHAPMAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, Robert, Mary, and Frank Yokel, appeal an order striking, with prejudice, three counts of their complaint which aüeged that the defendant Thomas M. Hite, who was the operator under an agreement unitizing several neighboring oil and gas leases, had breached fiduciary duties he owed to the plaintiffs. The trial court found that the counts failed to aQege facts from which it could find that Hite owed the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

I. BACKGROUND

The instant dispute involves an oil and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Thorpe v. MahinIllinois Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Carroll v. CaldwellIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Holstein v. GrossmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  4. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Ohio Oil Co. v. WrightIllinois Supreme Court · 1944

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Daniels v. CorriganAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  2. Thompson v. HiterAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  3. Hiatt v. Western Plastics, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2014
  4. Estate of Brown v. Arc Music GroupCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
  5. National Specialty Insurance v. Martin-VegueCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016

19 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