Myers v. Health Specialists

74 Citing cases

  1. Goodman v. Hanson

    408 Ill. App. 3d 285 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement is not judicial determination of the parties' rights

    Additionally, the relevant language in this case is the specific language contained in the release, not the release's general language. Plaintiff relies on Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68 (1992), to support his argument that the release does not apply to the claim involving the Federal return. However, that case is inapposite.

  2. Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner Block

    344 Ill. App. 3d 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an aiding-and-abetting-fraud plaintiff must allege that: “ the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act which causes an injury; the defendant must be regularly aware of his role as part of the overall or tortious activity at the time that he provides the assistance; the defendant must knowingly and substantially assist the principal violation”

    See Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock, 144 Ill. 2d 440, 448 (1991) ("A general release is inapplicable to an unknown claim"). In Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68 (1992), for instance, the plaintiff sued his employer, seeking malpractice coverage for a claim brought years after his employment had terminated and after the alleged malpractice. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs claim was barred by a release signed seven years earlier by which the plaintiff released the defendant from:

  3. Williams v. Mack's Auto Recycling, Inc.

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 230264 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 29; Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill.App.3d 68, 72 (1992). If a reasonable person could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny the motion.

  4. Sheppard v. Robards

    2020 Ill. App. 5th 190207 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72 (1992). If reasonable people could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny the motion.

  5. Briars Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Addison

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 160293 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    A party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012); Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). In determining whether to grant or deny a request for summary judgment, the trial court strictly construes all evidence in the record against the moving party and liberally in favor of the opponent.

  6. Zimmerman v. Schultheis

    2017 Ill. App. 5th 150451 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    When "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," the party who filed the motion is entitled to summary judgment. Id.; see also Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). The trial court must determine if a factual issue remains in deciding whether to grant or deny a party's motion for summary judgment.

  7. Judd v. Panera, LLC

    2016 Ill. App. 5th 150129 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    ¶ 15 Section 2-1005(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012); see also Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1, 6, 772 N.E.2d 215, 218 (2002); Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). The purpose of summary judgment is to determine if a question of fact exists.

  8. Gill v. Edwards

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 130522 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986); Koziol, 309 Ill. App. 3d at 476, 723 N.E.2d at 323. The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). If reasonable people could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed material facts or if a material fact remains in dispute, then the trial court should deny themotion.

  9. Justin Time Transp., LLC v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co.

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 130124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill.2d 229, 240, 95 Ill.Dec. 305, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986). The court is required to review all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill.App.3d 68, 72, 167 Ill.Dec. 225, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). If material facts are in dispute, then the trial court is required to “view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from the facts presented in favor of the nonmovant.” Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 303, 312, 282 Ill.Dec. 856, 807 N.E.2d 480, 487 (2004) (citing In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill.2d 402, 410–11, 185 Ill.Dec. 866, 615 N.E.2d 736, 739–40 (1993)). Courts should not use summary judgment to resolve questions of fact. Martens, 347 Ill.App.3d at 312, 282 Ill.Dec. 856, 807 N.E.2d at 487 (citing Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill.2d 511, 517, 190 Ill.Dec. 758, 622 N.E.2d 788, 792 (1993)). Courts use summary judgment to determine whether a factual question exists.

  10. Ismie Mutual Ins. v. Michaelis Jackson

    397 Ill. App. 3d 964 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    Involving medical malpractice policy

    Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986). The court must consider all pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file to decide if there is any issue of material fact. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72, 587 N.E.2d 494, 497 (1992). On appeal, courts review summary judgments de novo. Myers, 225 Ill. App. 3d at 72, 587 N.E.2d at 497.