169 Ill. App. 3d 21 - Konicki v. Wirta’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"To constitute the 'transaction of any business’ within this State and, thus, bring a nonresident within the jurisdiction of Illinois courts, a defendant must voluntarily seek the benefits and protections of the laws of this State. [Citations.] Section 2 — 209(a)(1) requires, essentially, that a plaintiffs claim lie in the wake of the commercial activities by which defendant allegedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts. [Citation.] Only the acts of a defendant can be considered in determining whether business was transacted in Illinois. [Citation.] The determination of whether a defendant sufficiently transacted business in Illinois so as to avail himself of the benefits of Illinois law requires consideration of several factors, such as who initiated the transaction, where the contract was entered into, and where the performance of the contract was to take place.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 271 Ill. App. 3d 144 - E.A. Cox Co. v. Road Savers International Corp.

2. “The facts here are insufficient to demonstrate that defendants voluntarily sought the benefits and protections of the laws of this State. Rather, it appears from the record that defendants would fully expect that, as the negotiations for the note began in California, the note was executed by them in California, and the note was interrelated to the California condominium property, the laws of California would apply. We conclude that defendants’ contacts with the State of Illinois are insufficient to support jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 744 F. Supp. 1289 - Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears Plc

3. ““(a) Any person *** who *** does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated! ] thereby submits such person * * * to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any such acts: (1) The transaction of any business within this State; * * * (c) Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him or her is based upon this Section.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2 — 209.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 221 Ill. App. 3d 275 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Crowther, Inc.