From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick v. Burgess Norton Mfg. Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Mar 26, 1965
56 Ill. App. 2d 145 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)

Summary

In Patrick, supra, the court held that in determining whether a new action was filed within the one year extension of time allowed by section 24a, the applicable method of calculation was that dictated by Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 31, par. 1.11.

Summary of this case from Ray v. Bokorney

Opinion

Gen. No. 64-87. (Abstract of Decision.)

March 26, 1965.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County; the Hon. JOHN S. PETERSEN, Judge, presiding.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Norman Peters and John G. Phillips, of Chicago (Sidney Z. Karasik, of counsel), for appellant.

Gates W. Clancy, of Geneva (Wendell W. Clancy, of counsel), for appellee.


Not to be published in full.


Summaries of

Patrick v. Burgess Norton Mfg. Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Mar 26, 1965
56 Ill. App. 2d 145 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)

In Patrick, supra, the court held that in determining whether a new action was filed within the one year extension of time allowed by section 24a, the applicable method of calculation was that dictated by Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 31, par. 1.11.

Summary of this case from Ray v. Bokorney
Case details for

Patrick v. Burgess Norton Mfg. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Oscar Patrick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Burgess Norton Mfg. Co., a…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District

Date published: Mar 26, 1965

Citations

56 Ill. App. 2d 145 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)
205 N.E.2d 643

Citing Cases

Sandman v. Marshall Field Co.

But the dismissal which gave rise to the refiling was entered of record on February 28, 1973. Therefore, the…

Ray v. Bokorney

OPINION Plaintiff complains that she was arbitrarily deprived of her rights to maintain her cause of action…