In re Estate of Whittington

48 Citing cases

  1. In re Petition of Kirchner

    164 Ill. 2d 468 (Ill. 1995)   Cited 59 times
    Stating nonparent only has standing to petition for custody of child if parent voluntarily and indefinitely relinquished custody, or upon a finding of unfitness

    More recently, this court unanimously rejected the use of summary judgment procedure to restore a natural parent's custody rights when the child had been in the care of another for years. ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169.) In Whittington, the legal guardian of a young boy was the child's great aunt.

  2. In re Custody of T.W

    365 Ill. App. 3d 1075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 10 times
    Setting forth the standard for determining whether a judgment is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence

    The court criticized previous cases for failing to apply section 11-7 as written. In re R.L.S., 218 Ill. 2d at 444, 844 N.E.2d at 32, citing In re Petition of Kirchner, 164 Ill. 2d 468, 484-85, 649 N.E.2d 324, 332 (1995) ( Kirchner); In re Estate of Whittington, 107 Ill. 2d 169, 177, 483 N.E.2d 210, 215 (1985); In re Custody of Townsend, 86 Ill. 2d at 508, 427 N.E.2d at 1234; and People ex rel. Edwards v. Livingston, 42 Ill. 2d 201, 209-10, 247 N.E.2d 417, 422 (1969).

  3. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, Missouri v. Boatmen's National Bank

    261 Ill. App. 3d 750 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 69 times
    Holding an attorney who drafted a will owed a duty in contract or tort to the remainder beneficiaries of a testamentary trust; under either theory, the non-client beneficiary must demonstrate that they are in the nature of a third-party intended beneficiary of the relationship between the attorney and the client, and evidence of intention is derived from a consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time of the execution of the will

    "Pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any party 'may move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his or her favor for all or any part of the relief sought' against him or her. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, pars. 2-1005(a), (b).) Although the use of a summary judgment procedure is encouraged as an aid in expeditious disposition of a lawsuit, it is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and should only be allowed when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. [Citation.] 'In determining whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the court must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent.' ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177[, 483 N.E.2d 210, 215]; Tersavich v. First National Bank Trust [Co.] (1991), 143 Ill.2d 74, 80-81[, 571 N.E.2d 733].)" Loyola Academy v. SS Roof Maintenance, Inc. (1992), 146 Ill.2d 263, 271-72, 586 N.E.2d 1211, 1214-15. Where, as here, plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, the only issue before the court on review is whether all the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ( Lindenmier v. City of Rockford (1987), 156 Ill. App.3d 76, 508 N.E.2d 1201.)

  4. Watson v. J.C. Penney Co.

    605 N.E.2d 723 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that if the sixty-year-old natural accumulations rule is to be overruled, it should be by the Illinois legislature or the Supreme Court of Illinois

    The Illinois Supreme Court recently wrote the following regarding summary judgment: "Although the use of a summary judgment procedure is encouraged as an aid in expeditious disposition of a lawsuit, it is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and should only be allowed when the right of the moving party is clear and free of doubt. [Citation.] `In determining whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the court must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent.' ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177[, 483 N.E.2d 210, 215]; [see also] Tersavich v. First National Bank Trust (1991), 143 Ill.2d 74, 80-81[, 571 N.E.2d 733, 735-36].)" Loyola Academy v. S S Roof Maintenance, Inc. (1992), 146 Ill.2d 263, 271-72, 586 N.E.2d 1211, 1215.

  5. Darrough v. Glendale Heights Comm. Hosp

    234 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that, in a negligence claim, a plaintiff can establish proximate cause by establishing that the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused plaintiffs injury and the unlikelihood of that injury absent negligence

    ( Addison v. Whittenberg (1988), 124 Ill.2d 287, 294.) Summary judgment is proper when, construing the evidence in the record strongly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177; Dockery v. Ortiz (1989), 185 Ill. App.3d 296, 304-05), the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-1005(c); Vuletich v. United States Steel Corp. (1987), 117 Ill.2d 417, 421; Hagy v. McHenryCounty Conservation District (1989), 190 Ill. App.3d 833, 842). To prevent entry of summary judgment, an opponent must present a bona fide factual issue and not merely general denials and conclusions of law. ( Wil-Shore Motor Sales, Inc. v. Continental Illinois National Bank Trust Co. (1984), 130 Ill. App.3d 167, 172.)

  6. In re R.L.S

    218 Ill. 2d 428 (Ill. 2006)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that fit parents are entitled to custody of their children under the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/11–1 et seq. (West 2004))

    Instead, this court has repeatedly held that, despite the statute's pronouncement, a fit parent's custody rights are subservient to the best interests of the child. See, e.g.,Kirchner, 164 Ill.2d at 484-85, 208 Ill.Dec. 268, 649 N.E.2d 324; In re Estate of Whittington, 107 Ill.2d 169, 177, 90 Ill.Dec. 892, 483 N.E.2d 210 (1985); Townsend, 86 Ill.2d at 508, 56 Ill.Dec. 685, 427 N.E.2d 1231; People ex rel. Edwards v. Livingston, 42 Ill.2d 201, 209-10, 247 N.E.2d 417 (1969). A typical example of this court's view of section 11-7 can be found in Kirchner.

  7. Loyola Academy v. S S Roof Maint

    146 Ill. 2d 263 (Ill. 1992)   Cited 467 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Loyola Academy, this court adopted four factors to be used in determining whether the trial court's denial of a party's motion to amend constituted an abuse of discretion: (1) whether the proposed amendment will cure the defective pleading; (2) whether the proposed amendment would surprise or prejudice the opposing party; (3) whether the proposed amendment was timely filed; and (4) whether the movant had previous opportunities to amend.

    "In determining whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the court must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent." ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177; Tersavich v. First National Bank Trust (1991), 143 Ill.2d 74, 80-81.) In short, "[a] motion for summary judgment is to be decided on the basis of the record as it exists at the time the motion is heard."

  8. Addison v. Whittenberg

    124 Ill. 2d 287 (Ill. 1988)   Cited 124 times
    In Addison, the supreme court specifically refused to uphold summary judgment on the basis that the Rule 220 deadline had passed.

    (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-1005(c).) The pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file must be construed against the movant and in favor of the opponent ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177), but the opponent of the motion cannot rely simply on his complaint or answer to raise an issue of fact when the movant "supplies facts which, if not contradicted, would entitle such a party to a judgment as a matter of law" ( Carruthers v. B.C. Christopher Co. (1974), 57 Ill.2d 376, 380). An order allowing summary judgment will be reversed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Department of Revenue v. Heartland Investments, Inc. (1985), 106 Ill.2d 19, 31.

  9. Rowe v. State Bank

    125 Ill. 2d 203 (Ill. 1988)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that it was proper for a successor judge to rule on a party's motion for reconsideration of the denial of a summary judgment motion

    A motion for summary judgment and its supporting documents must be construed strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent. ( In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177; Williamsv. Alfred N. Koplin Co. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 482, 485; Doran v. Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co. (1977), 45 Ill. App.3d 981.

  10. In re Custody of Peterson

    112 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 1986)   Cited 65 times
    In Peterson, the maternal grandparents sought custody of their grandchild upon the death of the child's mother, who had been living in the grandparents' home with the child.

    " ( In re Custody of Townsend (1981), 86 Ill.2d 502, 508. See also In re Estate of Whittington (1985), 107 Ill.2d 169, 177.) This superior right of the natural parent is recognized and embodied in our statutory law.