Legal Opinion

People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Lann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 24, 1992No. 1-90-2800PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McNAMARA

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (134 Ill. 2d R. 308), this interlocutory appeal requires us to consider the following question certified by the circuit court of Cook County:

“[W]hether, for purposes of discovery, individual consumers [may] be considered party plaintiffs rather than occurrence witnesses in suits brought by the Attorney General in the public interest when the Attorney General seeks restitution for individual consumers pursuant to the provisions of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act [(Consumer Fraud Act or the Act)].” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 1211/2, par.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  2. People v. Pacific Land Research Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Downers Grove Volkswagen, Inc. v. Wigglesworth Imports, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1989
  4. Frahm v. UrkovichAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  5. Lakeview Trust & Savings Bank v. EstradaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. MacKinac v. Arcadia National Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1995
  2. Zazove v. Pelikan, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2001
  3. Illinois v. SDS West Corp.District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2009
  4. White & Brewer Trucking, Inc. v. DonleyDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 1997
  5. Illinois v. AU OPTRONICS CORP.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011

3 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