Norris v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co.

33 Citing cases

  1. People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 100024 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 18 times

    People v. Tenner, 206 Ill.2d 381, 395, 276 Ill.Dec. 343, 794 N.E.2d 238 (2002). The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that questions of law decided on a previous appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill.App.3d 576, 580, 306 Ill.Dec. 460, 857 N.E.2d 859 (2006). “Howeverthe doctrine ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided; it is not a limit on their power.’ ”

  2. Perik v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, U.S.A., N.A.

    2017 Ill. App. 160281 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    Questions of law decided in an appeal become the law of the case for the trial court on remand, conclusively settling that question for the trial court. In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 364-65 (2005); CNA International, Inc. v. Baer, 2012 IL App (1st) 112174, ¶ 38; Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580 (2006). Our holdings regarding the existence and validity of these defenses were clearly questions of law.

  3. First Mortg. Co. v. Dina

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 170043 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 33 "Under the law of the case doctrine, questions of law decided on a previous appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal." Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh , 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580, 306 Ill.Dec. 460, 857 N.E.2d 859 (2006). Illinois courts have commonly recognized two exceptions to the doctrine: "(1) when a higher reviewing court, subsequent to the lower court's decision, makes a contrary ruling on the same issue; and (2) when a reviewing court finds its prior decision was palpably erroneous."

  4. In re Marriage of Jones

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 180388 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    This doctrine provides that questions of law decided on a previous appeal are binding on the circuit court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. Id. (citing Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh , 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580, 306 Ill.Dec. 460, 857 N.E.2d 859 (2006) ). This doctrine is intended to maintain the prestige of the courts.

  5. Lagunas v. Am. Heartland Ins. Co.

    2023 Ill. App. 220627 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    In Illinois, arbitration is a mandatory yet nonbinding procedure. Ill. S.Ct. R. 86 (eff. Jan. 1, 1994); Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill.App.3d 576, 589 (2006). Since arbitration is non-binding, no party that participates in good faith may be forced to accept an arbitration award.

  6. Goering v. Midwest Neurology, Ltd.

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 200735 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Recognizing that the plaintiff s amended complaint was the "operative pleading" where it was complete in itself and did not adopt the prior pleading

    ¶ 28 The purpose of the law-of-the-case doctrine is to protect settled expectations of the parties, ensure uniformity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effect proper administration of justice, and bring litigation to an end. Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill.App.3d 576, 581 (2006). The doctrine is also intended to maintain the prestige of the courts, because, if an appellate court issues contrary opinions on the same issue in the same case, its prestige is undercut.

  7. Rainey v. Ind. Ins. Co.

    2019 Ill. App. 173060 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    The doctrine reflects the courts' general practice of refusing to reopen what has already been decided. Norris v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580 (2006). In addition, the doctrine is intended to protect the parties' settled expectations, ensure the issuance of uniform decisions, maintain consistency, properly administer justice and bring litigation to a close.

  8. Carstens v. Carstens (In re Marriage of Carstens)

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 170183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 14 times

    People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2012 IL App (2d) 100024, ¶ 31, 359 Ill.Dec. 833, 967 N.E.2d 863. Pursuant to the doctrine, questions decided on a previous appeal are binding on both the trial court on remand and the appellate court on subsequent appeals. Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. , 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580, 306 Ill.Dec. 460, 857 N.E.2d 859 (2006). A prerequisite to the application of this doctrine is that there has been a prior appeal.

  9. People v. Colquitt

    2017 Ill. App. 151147 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ourt on the same issue. Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. App. 3d 898, 911 (2007). This exception does not apply to this case because a higher court has not ruled contrary to this court's ruling in the prior appeal. The second exception "'allows the reviewing court to depart from the doctrine of the law of the case if the court finds that its prior decision was palpably erroneous, but only when the court remanded the case for a new trial on all issues.'" Alwin, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 911 (quoting Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co., 268 Ill. App. 3d 698, 701 (1994)). ¶ 18 The law of the case doctrine is used to ensure decisions are uniform and consistent within a single case, as well as to ensure the protection of the parties' settled expectations, and to end litigation as efficiently as possible. Alwin, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 911; Radwill v. Manor Care of Westmont, Illinois, LLC, 2013 IL App (2d) 120957, ¶ 8; Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 581 (2006). Keeping these goals in mind, courts have rarely chosen to use the palpably erroneous exception to reverse prior decisions.

  10. Tina M.F. Gingrich, P.C. v. Midkiff

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 120332 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    This doctrine applies to both issues of law and issues of fact. Bjork v. Draper, 404 Ill. App. 3d 493, 501 (2010). Questions decided on a previous appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580 (2006). The doctrine's purposes are to avoid indefinite relitigation of the same issues and to ensure that consistent results are obtained in the same litigation.