Rotogravure Service v. R.W. Borrowdale Co.

48 Citing cases

  1. Marrese v. Am. Academy Ortho. Surgeons

    726 F.2d 1150 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 95 times
    Noting that there are different ways for district courts to protect non-privileged documents

    However, Illinois courts have explicitly stated that this is only one test that can be employed for this purpose. See LaGrange Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Rock River Corp., 97 Ill.App.3d 712, 715, 53 Ill.Dec. 112, 115, 423 N.E.2d 496, 500 (1981); Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co., 77 Ill.App.3d 518, 525, 32 Ill.Dec. 762, 769, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1148 (1978).

  2. Industrial Steel Constr. v. Mooncotch

    264 Ill. App. 3d 507 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that, while appraisals under an option contract are ongoing, a lessee's obligation to pay rent continues until a final purchase price is validly set

    See, e.g., Cities, 404 Ill. at 554. As to defendants' argument that plaintiff has failed to show that it suffered damages, we note that the court in Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co. (1973), 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 527, 395 N.E.2d 1143, held that the trial court hearing chancery matters has full jurisdiction to award such legal damages as have resulted from delay in the performance of a contract in addition to decreeing specific performance. If coexistent remedies are consistent with each other, a party may adopt all or select any one which he thinks best suited to the end sought. Rotogravure, 77 Ill. App. 3 d at 527.

  3. Best Coin-Op, Inc. v. Paul F. Ilg Supply Co.

    189 Ill. App. 3d 638 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 53 times
    Applying a five-year limitation period for tortious interference with contract

    • 3, 4 The doctrine of res judicata is founded upon the important public policy principles of judicial economy and consistency ( Morris v. Union Oil Co. (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 148, 154, 421 N.E.2d 278, 283), and upon the equity of preventing harassment of a defendant by a multiplicity of lawsuits ( Baird Warner, Inc. v. Addison Industrial Park, Inc. (1979), 70 Ill. App.3d 59, 64, 387 N.E.2d 831, 837). However, it is axiomatic that where either res judicata or collateral estoppel is raised as a bar to an action, the burden of establishing its applicability is on the party relying on it. ( Patzner v. Baise (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 42, 44, 494 N.E.2d 178, 180; Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co. (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 525, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1149.) The party raising either defense must show with clarity and certainty the parties, the precise issues, and the judgment of the former action.

  4. Vole, Inc. v. Georgacopoulos

    181 Ill. App. 3d 1012 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 37 times
    Recognizing that the statutory provision requiring that the notice be sent by registered mail was intended merely to insure delivery rather than to determine the validity of service

    • 3 Defendant also argues that principles of res judicata preclude the trial court from relying on the allegations of fact contained in count I as a basis for granting additional relief under count II. A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the rights of the parties and their privies, and as to them constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. ( Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co. (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 395 N.E.2d 1143.) Res judicata should only be applied where fairness and justice require and only to facts and conditions as they existed when judgment was entered. ( Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co. (1979), 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 395 N.E.2d 1143.) Before a judgment can bar a subsequent action, it must be a final judgment on the merits.

  5. Medcom Holding v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories

    984 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 63 times
    Interpreting Illinois contract law

    In a case involving specific performance and damages, this possible prejudice does not exist because both remedies depend upon an affirmance of the contract. This determination is consistent with Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co., 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 32 Ill.Dec. 762, 769-70, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1150-51 (1st Dist. 1979) where an Illinois court determined that election of remedies did not prohibit the pursuit of damages in lieu of specific performance. The court noted that damages and specific performance were not so inconsistent and irreconcilable that the choice to pursue one would logically renounce the other.

  6. Torres v. Rebarchak

    814 F.2d 1219 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 56 times
    Finding that the defendant waives the rule against claim splitting if the defendant fails to interpose a timely objection

    Redfern v. Sullivan, 111 Ill.App.3d 372, 377, 67 Ill.Dec. 166, 170, 444 N.E.2d 205, 209 (4th Dist. 1982). Any doubt as to what was decided in the earlier action must be resolved against an application of res judicata. People ex rel. Scott v. Chicago Park District, 66 Ill.2d 65, 68, 4 Ill.Dec. 660, 662, 360 N.E.2d 773, 775 (1976); Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co., 77 Ill.App.3d 518, 525, 32 Ill.Dec. 762, 768, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1149 (1st Dist. 1979). A. EQUITABLE CLAIMS

  7. Kirk v. Bremen Comm. High Sch. Dist

    811 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 30 times

    Other Illinois decisions have repeatedly noted that the test utilized to determine whether the same cause of action is involved is "whether the underlying facts are identical in both actions or whether the same evidence would sustain both actions." See Gittings v. Hilton, 124 Ill.App.3d 594, 79 Ill.Dec. 935, 937, 464 N.E.2d 839, 841 (3d Dist. 1984); Cranwill v. Donahue, 99 Ill. App.3d 968, 55 Ill. Dec. 362, 364, 426 N.E.2d 337, 339 (3d Dist. 1981); Bass v. Scott, 79 Ill.App.3d 224, 34 Ill.Dec. 561, 563, 398 N.E.2d 236, 238 (1st Dist. 1979); Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R.W. Borrowdale Co., 77 Ill.App.3d 518, 32 Ill.Dec. 762, 768, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1149 (1st Dist. 1979). Defendants have alternatively phrased the test they advocate as the "same core of operative facts."

  8. Jones v. City of Alton

    757 F.2d 878 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 102 times
    Holding federal claims and defenses were not precluded where plaintiff tried to raise them in state proceedings but they were improperly excluded

    In order to be barred by issue preclusion, or by claim preclusion where the issue was litigated, the prior decision must have been on the merits of the issue. Bone, 82 Ill.2d at 286-87, 45 Ill.Dec. at 95, 412 N.E.2d at 446; Morris, 96 Ill.App.3d at 153-54, 51 Ill.Dec. at 774, 421 N.E.2d at 282; Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. R. W. Borrowdale Co., 77 Ill. App.3d 518, 524, 32 Ill.Dec. 762, 767-68, 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1148-49 (1st Dist. 1979). In addition, the party against whom the prior judgment is asserted must have had an effective opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceedings.

  9. Clear Spring Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Victory Ins. Co.

    21-cv-01162 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2021)

    As an initial matter, Victory argues that, because Clear Spring terminated the MGA Contract, its request for specific performance (production of the Clear Spring Data in a particular format) is barred. Resp. at 9-10 (citing Lone Star-Cardinal Motorcycle Ventures VIII, LLC v. BFC Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 3671504, *3-4 (N.D. Ill. 2016); JNS Power & Control Sys., Inc. v. 350 Green, LLC, 624 Fed.Appx. 439, 445 (7th Cir. 2015); McCormick Rd. Assocs., L.P. II v. Taub, 659 N.E.2d 52, 54 (Ill.App.Ct. 1995); Rotogravure Serv., Inc. v. R. W. Borrowdale Co., 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1150 (Ill.App.Ct. 1979)). The Court agrees with Clear Spring that the cases cited by Victory are distinguishable, and where a contract provides for a post-termination obligation, that obligation is enforceable.

  10. Clear Spring Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Victory Ins. Co.

    21-cv-01162 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2021)

    As an initial matter, Victory argues that, because Clear Spring terminated the MGA Contract, its request for specific performance (production of the Clear Spring Data in a particular format) is barred. Resp. at 9-10 (citing Lone Star-Cardinal Motorcycle Ventures VIII, LLC v. BFC Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 3671504, *3-4 (N.D. Ill. 2016); JNS Power & Control Sys., Inc. v. 350 Green, LLC, 624 Fed.Appx. 439, 445 (7th Cir. 2015); McCormick Rd. Assocs., L.P. II v. Taub, 659 N.E.2d 52, 54 (Ill.App.Ct. 1995); Rotogravure Serv., Inc. v. R. W. Borrowdale Co., 395 N.E.2d 1143, 1150 (Ill.App.Ct. 1979)). The Court agrees with Clear Spring that the cases cited by Victory are distinguishable, and where a contract provides for a post-termination obligation, that obligation is enforceable.