Legal Opinion
Nalivaika v. Murphy
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided December 23, 1983No. 83-154PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mejda
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the circuit court which denied their post-trial motion to vacate the dismissal of the amended complaint. The amended complaint was in two counts and sought recovery under separate theories for attorney fees expended in successfully defending against a lawsuit brought by third parties allegedly as a result of the actions of the defendants in this case. The issue on appeal is whether the amended complaint states a cause of action for which such attorney fees (the only element of damages claimed in the amended complaint) may be recovered. We affirm as to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Soules v. General Motors Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1980
- Ritter v. RitterIllinois Supreme Court · 1943
- Sorenson v. Fio RitoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Hiss v. FriedbergSupreme Court of Virginia · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Fednav International Ltd. v. Continental InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Duran v. Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1992
- Csx Transportation, Inc. v. Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Negro Nest, LLC v. Mid-Northern Management, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,524 Champion Parts, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co. Daniel J. O'Neill and Peter A. RussCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.