SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer

19 Citing cases

  1. Camper v. Burnside Constr. Co.

    2013 Ill. App. 121589 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that the conduct of the indemnitee, by "manufactur[ing] and deliver[ing] a manhole by unloading it from a struck and setting it on the ground at the construction," fell within the scope of the Act; thus, the indemnification clause of the purchase order agreement was void as against public policy

    ¶ 36 In SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, a plaintiff sued the defendants alleging that the defendants built a dam on their property that caused water to improperly divert water onto the plaintiff's property. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill.App.3d 893, 894, 238 Ill.Dec. 993, 713 N.E.2d 239 (1999). The parties thereafter entered into a settlement agreement, which the circuit court found to be fair, and it dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action with prejudice.

  2. DEMES v. ABN AMRO SERVICES CO., INC.

    No. 01 C 0967 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2002)

    A judgment is deemed final for purposes of res judicata, if that judgment terminates the litigation on the merits. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill. App.3d 893, 896 (1999) ( SDS). A dismissal with prejudice is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the matter had proceeded to trial and been resolved by a final judgment. SDS, 305 Ill. App.3d at 896.

  3. Kasang v. Grzesik

    2021 Ill. App. 192258 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ¶ 23 First, the chancery court's judgment following the trial was a final judgment on the merits. A judgment is on the merits when it decides the parties' rights and liabilities (SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill.App.3d 893, 896 (1999)), and a judgment is final when it terminates litigation on the merits such that the only thing left to do is execute the judgment. People v. Brown, 2017 IL App (2d) 160971, ¶ 23.

  4. Ill. Dep't of Healthcare & Family Servs. ex rel. Alu v. Ikechukwu

    2016 Ill. App. 143113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Id. A judgment is "on the merits" where it amounts to a decision as to the respective rights and liabilities of parties based on the facts before the court. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill. App. 3d 893, 896 (1999). In addition to the matters that were actually decided in the first action, res judicata applies equally to those matters that could have been decided in the prior suit.

  5. Cohen v. Deutschman

    2015 Ill. App. 132767 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    As part of the final judgment, attorney MacFarlane's third party complaint for contribution against the Deutschman defendants was dismissed as moot. The plaintiff argues that since the third party complaint was dismissed as moot, it does not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the Trustee's legal malpractice claim against the Deutschman defendants. ¶ 34 For purposes of res judicata, a judgment on the merits amounts to a decision on the respective rights and liabilities of the parties based on the facts before the court. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill. App. 3d 893, 896 (1999). To be deemed final for purposes of res judicata, a judgment must terminate the litigation on the merits, so that all that remains is to proceed with the execution of the judgment.

  6. Norwood v. Czerniak

    20-cv-7773 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2023)

    Under Illinois law, a dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill.App.3d 893, 896, 713 N.E.2d 239, 241, 238 Ill.Dec. 993, 995 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999) (“A dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits that bars plaintiff from maintaining another action on the same claim.”)

  7. Platinum Supplemental Ins., Inc. v. Guarantee Tr. Life Ins. Co.

    Case No. 17-cv-8872 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    E.g., Fox, 2012 WL 2129393 at *4; 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2000); Nelson v. Chicago Park Dist., 408 Ill.App.3d 53, 61 (1st Dist. 2011); Jackson v. Callan Pub., Inc., 356 Ill.App.3d 326, 340 (1st Dist. 2005) ("The modern view generally recognizes that a valid consent judgment is entitled to a res judicata effect, so as to preclude relitigation of the same claim or cause of action as was covered by such judgment."); SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 305 Ill.App.3d 893, 896 (4th Dist. 1999). This Court adopts the latter, modern view, pursuant to which the order dismissing the Cook County Action in March 2017 operates as a final judgment on the merits that precludes this litigation if the other elements of res judicata are met.

  8. Fox v. Will Cnty.

    Case No. 04 C 7309 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    See Nelson v. Chicago Park Dist., 945 N.E.2d 634, 642 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (holding that an "order entered by the trial court dismissing [a first case] with prejudice upon the execution of a termination agreement was a final judgment on the merits that satisfied the first element of res judicata."); Jackson v. Callan Pub., Inc., 826 N.E.2d 413, 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (noting that although "[t]here is a split of authority in Illinois cases as to whether a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement is sufficient to raise res judicata . .. [t]he modern view generally recognizes that a valid consent judgment is entitled to a res judicata effect, so as to preclude relitigation of the same claim or cause of action as was covered by such judgment."); SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 713 N.E.2d 239, 241 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) ("The settlement order in the original action was a final judgment on the merits."); Keim v. Kalbfleisch, 373 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978) ("the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's first complaint, pursuant to a settlement agreement, is a final judgment on the merits").

  9. Ellis v. Board of Jewish Education

    722 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Ill. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that a judgment is final for collateral estoppel purposes if the potential for appellate review is exhausted.

    E.g., In re J'America B., 806 N.E.2d 292, 301 (2004) (utilizing case law interpreting finality under Supreme Court Rule 301 in considering whether finality for collateral estoppel purposes existed); cf. SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 713 N.E.2d 239, 241 (1999) (relying upon case law considering finality for purposes of appeal in examining whether judgment was final for purposes of res judicata). Accordingly, in considering whether the Circuit Court rendered a final judgment on the merits, the Court will look for guidance in state law interpreting the final judgment requirement for purposes of appeal.

  10. JOHNSON v. ORR

    Case No. 07 C 5900 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2007)   Cited 3 times

    However, courts in Illinois are split on the issue of whether an agreed order is sufficient to raise res judicata. Jackson v. Callan Pub'lg, Inc., 826 N.E.2d 413, 428 (Ill.App.Ct. 2005) (noting the split in authority); compare Kandalepas, 645 N.E.2d at 548 (holding that an agreed order is not a judicial determination of the parties' rights, but rather is a recordation of the agreement between the parties that, like any other agreement, is interpreted by the law of contracts) with SDS Partners, Inc. v. Cramer, 713 N.E.2d 239, 241 (Ill.App.Ct. 1999) (holding that an order entered pursuant to a settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits for the purposes of res judicata). In order for res judicata to bar a subsequent action, a final judgment on the merits must have been entered.