Dimensions Medical Center v. Adv. Amb. Surg. Center, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. N. Shore Cmty. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sheffield Wellington LLC

    2014 Ill. App. 123784 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 49 times
    Finding that an overcharge in a contractor's mechanic's lien claim was not substantial enough to constitute constructive fraud

    ¶ 63 The issue of standing is a matter of law and is also subject to de novo review. Malec v. City of Belleville, 384 Ill.App.3d 465, 468, 322 Ill.Dec. 748, 891 N.E.2d 1039 (2008) (quoting Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill.App.3d 530, 534, 238 Ill.Dec. 776, 712 N.E.2d 880 (1999) ). Again, de novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan, 408 Ill.App.3d at 578, 350 Ill.Dec. 63, 948 N.E.2d 132.

  2. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., Inc. v. Health Facilities & Servs. Review Bd.

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 130468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 9 After plaintiff received the permit but before it completed construction, a potential business competitor brought a lawsuit challenging the permit. See Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill.App.3d 530, 238 Ill.Dec. 776, 712 N.E.2d 880 (1999), appeal denied,185 Ill.2d 622, 242 Ill.Dec. 136, 720 N.E.2d 1091 (1999). The lawsuit named both plaintiff and defendant.

  3. Ahmad v. Ill. Health Facilities

    994 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Case law, however, defines the term as those persons or entities who operate a competing health care facility. Id. (citing Condell Hospital, 161 Ill.App.3d at 933, 113 Ill.Dec. 765, 515 N.E.2d at 767–68);see also Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill.App.3d 530, 238 Ill.Dec. 776, 712 N.E.2d 880 (1999); Manor Healthcare Corp., 129 Ill.App.3d at 294, 84 Ill.Dec. 532, 472 N.E.2d at 494. ¶ 21 Having reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, we find that Dr. Ahmad and Marion Eye Centers make no arguments that they are competing health care facilities.

  4. Nationwide Advantage Mortg. Co. v. Ortiz

    2012 Ill. App. 112755 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 73 times
    Noting “the fact that defendant was living on the subject property for nearly two years without making a mortgage payment cannot be ignored”

    ¶ 19 The issue of standing is a matter of law and is also subject to de novo review. Malec v. City of Belleville, 384 Ill.App.3d 465, 468, 322 Ill.Dec. 748, 891 N.E.2d 1039 (2008) (quoting Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill.App.3d 530, 534, 238 Ill.Dec. 776, 712 N.E.2d 880 (1999)). ¶ 20 Under the de novo standard of review, the reviewing court does not need to defer to the trial court's judgment or reasoning.

  5. Borsellino v. Putnam

    2011 Ill. App. 102242 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 20 times

    They claim that the underlying issue of whether Archipelago was a corporate opportunity of CTA was a derivative claim that could only have been filed on CTA's behalf and, therefore, Borsellino had no interest in the consolidated suit. The question of whether a party has standing is reviewed de novo. Malec v. City of Belleville, 384 Ill. App. 3d 465, 468 (2008) (quoting Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill. App. 3d 530, 534 (1999)). De novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform.

  6. I.C.S. Illinois v. Waste Management

    403 Ill. App. 3d 211 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 53 times
    Noting that named plaintiffs must show that they personally have been injured, not that the injury has been sustained by other members of the class whom they purportedly represent

    In reaching this conclusion, we reject as inapposite those cases cited by plaintiffs for the proposition that the de novo standard of review is applicable in this case, as all of those cases concerned the standard of review applicable to an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint, not from a court's denial of leave to file a complaint. City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (2004); La Salle National Bank v. City Suites, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 780 (2001); Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill. App. 3d 530 (1999); Metzger v. New Century Oil Gas Supply Corp. Income Development Program, 230 Ill. App. 3d 679 (1992). • 1 Thus, in determining whether the circuit court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to file a fifth amended complaint, we must first determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring this action.

  7. Malec v. City of Belleville

    384 Ill. App. 3d 465 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 19 times
    In Malec, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 467-68, 891 N.E.2d at 1040-41, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief invalidating a set of ordinances designed to promote development of a shopping center and a residential neighborhood and an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the ordinances.

    In addition, "the issue of standing is a matter of law and therefore properly subject to de novo review." Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill. App. 3d 530, 534 (1999). "It is established that a taxpayer can enjoin the misuse of public funds, based upon taxpayers' ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency caused by misappropriation thereof."

  8. National City Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue

    366 Ill. App. 3d 37 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that issues involving statutory interpretation, a ruling on a motion to dismiss, and ripeness are reviewed de novo

    It cites Amtech Systems, Corp. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 264 Ill.App.3d 1095, 1101, 202 Ill.Dec. 80, 637 N.E.2d 619 (1994), a case in which the court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review to decide an issue of standing. But see Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd. v. Advanced Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc., 305 Ill.App.3d 530, 534, 238 Ill.Dec. 776, 712 N.E.2d 880 (1999) (disagreeing with the standard of review announced in Amtech Systems). The standard of review for issues of standing is not helpful here because the Department has not challenged National City's standing to bring this action.