Pedigo v. Johnson

24 Citing cases

  1. Holstein v. City of Chicago

    803 F. Supp. 205 (N.D. Ill. 1992)   Cited 17 times
    In Holstein, the plaintiff brought a Section 1983 suit in the Northern District of Illinois challenging the towing of his car and the post-tow procedural hearings provided by the City of Chicago.

    After a review of such a decision, the reviewing court's judgment is res judicata to all issues raised before it, and all issues, which could have been raised on the record but were not, are deemed waived. Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App.3d 392, 394, 85 Ill.Dec. 702, 704, 474 N.E.2d 430, 432 (1985). Here, Holstein has foregone review of the post-tow hearing in state court.

  2. Midland Hotel v. Director of Emp. Security

    282 Ill. App. 3d 312 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming dismissal of class action complaint as improper collateral attack on final agency decision, where that decision was reviewable under the Administrative Review Act

    The doctrine applies not only to those issues that were actually raised in the first proceeding, but also to any issues that might have been raised in that proceeding. People v. Williams, 138 Ill.2d 377, 563 N.E.2d 385 (1990); Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App.3d 392, 394, 474 N.E.2d 430 (1985); Redfern v. Sullivan, 111 Ill. App.3d 372, 375, 444 N.E.2d 205 (1982). The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue of ultimate fact that was previously decided in a valid, final judgment.

  3. Amoroso v. Crescent Private Capital, L.P.

    No. 02 C 1453 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2002)

    The related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar the relitigation of the same cause of action or issues by the same parties or their privies. Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); Pedigo v. Johnson, 474 N.E.2d 430, 432 (Ill.App. 4th Dist. 1985). The doctrines' purpose is to foster judicial economy and to discourage harassment of a defendant through multiple law suits.

  4. Cecchini v. Kuehn

    2018 Ill. App. 170382 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    ¶ 23 Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents repetitive litigation, in order to preserve the finality of judgments, protect litigants from the burden of retrying an identical cause of action with the same party or a privy, and conserve judicial resources. Caporale v. Shannon Plumbing Co., Inc., 20 Ill. App. 3d 511, 512, 314 N.E.2d 540, 542 (1974) (res judicata reflects the judicial policy in favor of finality of judgments and allows a party to prevent repetitive litigation on the same cause of action); People v. Kidd, 398 Ill. 405, 410, 75 N.E.2d 851, 854-55 (1947) ("Sound public policy requires that different judicial determinations shall not be made of the same cause of action"); Pratt v. Baker, 79 Ill. App. 2d 479, 485, 223 N.E.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The law affords every [person] his day in court along with the opportunity to present his case on the issues involved; and it requires that he bring forth all grounds of recovery or defense which he may then have."); Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App. 3d 392, 395, 474 N.E.2d 430, 433 (1985) (once litigation has concluded, all questions "relating to the same subject matter which were open for consideration and could have been presented are res judicata"); Caporale, 20 Ill. App. 3d at 513, 314 N.E.2d at 542 (" '[d]efendant litigants have just as much right to have litigation ended as plaintiffs have to begin it.' ") (quoting Bernick v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 325 Ill. App. 495, 501, 60 N.E.2d 442, 444 (1945)); Pedigo, 130 Ill. App. 3d at 394, 474 N.E.2d at 432 (res judicata promotes judicial economy).¶ 24 When a former suit is relied upon to bar an action, the questions are whether the cause of action is the same in both proceedings, whether the two actions are between the same parties or

  5. Elgazar v. City of Chi.

    2018 Ill. App. 162993 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    On that same date, the circuit court entered a handwritten order granting the City's motion "for the reasons stated on the record." At the hearing, the circuit court considered Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App. 3d 392 (1985), and ultimately found that res judicata applied because Elgazar "could have or should have raised" his claims during the proceedings in Elgazar I. The circuit court therefore dismissed Elgazar's complaint with prejudice. Elgazar filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied.

  6. Wipaporn T. v. Harlow H. (In re A.H.)

    2017 Ill. App. 133703 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    " Id . at 277, 22 Ill.Dec. 13, 382 N.E.2d 333. "A former judgment is deemed conclusive not only as to all matters litigated and determined, but all matters which might have been presented to support or defeat a claim." Id . The doctrine of res judicata prevents repetitive litigation in an effort to obtain judicial economy and to protect litigants from the burden of retrying an identical cause of action with the same party or privy. Pedigo v. Johnson , 130 Ill.App.3d 392, 394, 85 Ill.Dec. 702, 474 N.E.2d 430 (1985). "Res judicata is premised on the notion that the law affords every man his day in court along with the opportunity to present his case on the issues involved.

  7. In re Marriage of Kohl

    334 Ill. App. 3d 867 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 27 times
    Noting that a court of review may not consider any material outside the certified record on appeal

    Drabik, 65 Ill. App. 3d at 277. The doctrine of res judicata prevents repetitive litigation in an effort to obtain judicial economy and to protect litigants from the burden of retrying an identical cause of action with the same party or privy. Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App. 3d 392, 394, 474 N.E.2d 430 (1985). " Res judicata is premised on the notion that the law affords every man his day in court along with the opportunity to present his case on the issues involved."

  8. Buckhalter v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, Inc.

    768 F.2d 842 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 21 times
    Reaching a similar conclusion with regard to proceedings before the Illinois Human Rights Commission

    We decline to expand section 1738 to include adjudicatory hearings of a state administrative agency, but we do realize that under Illinois law, " res judicata . . . affixes to administrative decisions that are judicial in nature." Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill. App.3d 392, 394, 85 Ill.Dec. 702, 704, 474 N.E.2d 430, 432 (1985). In Illinois, "decisions of an administrative agency can have res judicata effect in a proper case.

  9. Norals v. Schneider Brothers, Inc.

    651 F. Supp. 1324 (N.D. Ill. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    Illinois courts have never decided whether a court-reviewed Board decision denying a fired employee unemployment benefits would bar a later action by the ex-employee seeking damages because the firing was allegedly race-discriminatory. There is no doubt claim preclusion can apply to administrative agency decisions that are judicial in nature ( Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill.App.8d 392, 394, 85 Ill.Dec. 702, 704, 474 N.E.2d 430, 432 (4th Dist. 1985)), but the party asserting such preclusion must show the administrative "judgment" otherwise satisfies the requirements for claim preclusion ( Edwards, 124 Ill.App.3d at 1008, 80 Ill.Dec. at 146, 464 N.E.2d at 1129). Because the identity of the parties or their privies is not in issue in this case, Schneider's remaining burden is to demonstrate that the claims decided by Board involve the same cause of action as Norals' present claims.

  10. Mu Sigma Inc. v. Banerjee

    2024 Ill. App. 231780 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    The doctrine is "premised on the notion that the law affords every man his day in court along with the opportunity to present his case on the issues involved." Pedigo v. Johnson, 130 Ill.App.3d 392, 394 (1985). Based on our review, it appears that in Illinois cases where a complaint has been dismissed based on the existence of a prior foreign-nation judgment, the substantive issues were presented to and addressed by the foreign court.