Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 2005No. 91494Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Freeman

I agree with my colleagues with respect to some, but not all, of the issues raised in this appeal. Apart from my disagreement on these legal matters, I am troubled by the tone and tenor of today’s opinion. I, therefore, write separately to explain my views.

I. BREACH OF CONTRACT

The court reverses the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff class outright, based on several different rationales. I agree with two major points. First, I concur in the judgment that the nationwide class certification cannot stand. While I disagree with the court’s analysis, I believe its conclusion is correct.…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. RoperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Steinberg v. Chicago Medical SchoolIllinois Supreme Court · 1977

20 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