Legal Opinion

Jurgensen v. Haslinger

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 27, 1998No. 3-97-0303PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lytton

Plaintiffs Virginia Jurgensen and Jeffrey Laviolette filed suit for tortious interference with an expectancy under a will against defendants Bruno and Roberta Haslinger, who were witnesses to a will. The trial judge dismissed the case, finding that defendants were absolutely immune from suit for statements made as witnesses in a judicial proceeding. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 (134 Ill. 2d R. 137), the trial judge imposed sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorney, Eugene J. Korst, who signed and filed the complaint. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint and imposed…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Butz v. EconomouSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Estate of Wernick v. MacKsIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Richard Worthington, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Dave Wilson and Jeff Wall, and Village of Peoria Heights, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  5. Lewy v. Koeckritz International, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Mark K. Patton, M.D., a Single Man v. Lynn Jacob Cox, Wife, and as Independent of the Last Will of Michael D. CoxCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  2. Fabiano v. City of Palos HillsAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002
  3. James J. Cervantes v. Larry JonesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
  4. Wynn v. EarinWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Wynn v. EarinWashington Supreme Court · 2008

16 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