Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Hanson v. Ahmed

382 Ill. App. 3d 941 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hanson v. Ahmed

17 Citing cases

  1. Wesly v. Nat'l Hemophilia Found.

    2020 Ill. App. 3d 170569 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 19 times

    ¶ 12 The tort of defamation occurs where the defamatory statements are published. See Hanson v. Ahmed , 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 942, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740 (2008). Publication is the act by which defamatory matter is conveyed to a third party.

  2. Accurate Pers., LLC v. Ralph Coleman Int'l Ltd.

    2017 Ill. App. 162423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The plaintiff's prima facie case may be overcome, however, by uncontradicted evidence that defeats jurisdiction. Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943 (2008). Section 2-209 of the Code, referred to as the Illinois long-arm statute, governs the exercise of personal jurisdiction by an Illinois court over a nonresident.

  3. Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc.

    2018 Ill. App. 173051 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    We may consider a plaintiff's complaint and any affidavits submitted by the parties; unrebutted allegations are taken as true. Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943 (2008); see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 212(a)(4) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (providing that discovery depositions may be used "for any purpose for which an affidavit may be used"). 5 ¶ 11 Personal jurisdiction is the authority of the court "to bring a person into its adjudicative process."

  4. Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc.

    2018 Ill. App. 173051 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    We may consider a plaintiff's complaint and any affidavits submitted by the parties; unrebutted allegations are taken as true. Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943 (2008); see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 212(a)(4) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (providing that discovery depositions may be used "for any purpose for which an affidavit may be used"). ¶ 11 Personal jurisdiction is the authority of the court "to bring a person into its adjudicative process." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  5. Campbell v. ACME Insulations, Inc.

    2018 Ill. App. 173051 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting a claim of "jurisdiction by necessity" alleging that no other forum was proper

    We may consider a plaintiff's complaint and any affidavits submitted by the parties; unrebutted allegations are taken as true. Hanson v. Ahmed , 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740 (2008) ; see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 212(a)(4) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (providing that discovery depositions may be used "for any purpose for which an affidavit may be used"). ¶ 11 Personal jurisdiction is the authority of the court "to bring a person into its adjudicative process."

  6. Young v. Ford Motor Co.

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 170177 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 4 times
    In Young, as in this case and in Russell, it appears that the company that sold the offending product in Illinois was acting as a distributor for a custom-made product manufactured by the out- of-state defendant.

    Russell v. SNFA , 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 28, 370 Ill.Dec. 12, 987 N.E.2d 778. The plaintiff's prima facie case may be overcome, however, by uncontradicted evidence defeating jurisdiction. Hanson v. Ahmed , 382 Ill. App. 3d 941, 943, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740, 743 (2008). "When a trial court decides a jurisdictional question solely on documentary evidence and without an evidentiary hearing, as occurred in this case, our review is de novo ."

  7. Elsener v. Brown

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 120209 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 31 times
    In Elsener v. Brown, 996 N.E.2d 84 (Ill.App.Ct. 2013), the court upheld the verdict on the employee's IWPCA claim because his contract expressly provided for severance pay if the employee were to be involuntarily terminated prior to the expiration of his contract.

    [2] ¶ 39 This does not end our inquiry, for we must still determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to section 2–209(a)(12) comported with due process principles under the Illinois and federal constitutions. See Rollins, 141 Ill.2d at 275, 152 Ill.Dec. 384, 565 N.E.2d 1302;Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill.App.3d 941, 943, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740 (2008). “The purpose of the Illinois long-arm statute is to assert jurisdiction over nonresidents to the extent permitted by the due process clause.

  8. Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC

    622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that "[t]here is nothing constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois" to exercise personal jurisdiction where the defendant had "held itself out to conduct business nationwide and was apparently successful in reaching customers across the country"

    Hemi argues, however, that a series of recent Illinois appellate court decisions demonstrates that Illinois does in fact require more than federal law. See Estate of Isringhausen v. Prime Contractors and Associates, Inc., 378 IU.App.3d 1059, 318 Ill.Dec. 363, 883 N.E.2d 594 (2008); Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill.App.3d 941, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740 (2008); Sabados, 378 Ill.App.3d 243, 317 Ill.Dec. 547, 882 N.E.2d 121; Bolger v. Nautica Int'l, Inc., 369 Ill.App.3d 947, 308 Ill.Dec. 335, 861 N.E.2d 666 (2007). We are not convinced.

  9. Rusinowski v. Village of Hillside

    835 F. Supp. 2d 641 (N.D. Ill. 2011)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that, while the officer's "qualified immunity claim may have merit upon a more developed record, this Court cannot conclude that the allegations in the Complaint are so deficient or indicative of qualified immunity that dismissing the Complaint at this stage is appropriate."

    In considering the jurisdictional consequences of phone calls or Internet contact, Illinois courts consider whether a defendant's actions deliberately and consciously intruded into Illinois. See, e.g., MacNeil v. Trambert, 401 Ill.App.3d 1077, 342 Ill.Dec. 314, 932 N.E.2d 441, 447 (2010) (where an eBay seller could not control the buyers location, the sale and related communications did not confer jurisdiction); Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill.App.3d 941, 321 Ill.Dec. 475, 889 N.E.2d 740, 745 (2008) (a phone call initiated by another party is not sufficient contact). Here, in order to harass Steven, DiDomenico deliberately and repeatedly chose to involve himself with Illinois police and schools.

  10. Clemens v. Greenberg

    2022 Ill. App. 201129 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    To subject Landrum to personal jurisdiction based on this attenuated connection with Illinois would violate due process. See Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 Ill.App.3d 941, 945 (2008) (participation in two phone calls initiated by an Illinois claims adjuster were "extremely attenuated" contacts with Illinois and so did not constitute minimum contacts with Illinois sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and satisfy due process). Because Landrum and Bellin did not have sufficient minimum contacts for an Illinois court to exercise personal jurisdiction, we need not consider whether it would be reasonable to require Landrum and Bellin to litigate in Illinois. See Russell, 2013 IL 113909, ¶ 87 (a court must consider the reasonableness of requiring defendants to litigate in Illinois if the court determines that the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois).