Subject Index Jurisdiction

On Jan. 12, 2024, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear tax disputes if they are not complex and do not require agency expertise.

On Oct. 16, 2020, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff’s choice to litigate in Illinois due to a lack of connection between the plaintiff and the forum.

A foreign corporation does not subject itself to Illinois general jurisdiction by registering to do business in Illinois under the Business Corporation Act of 1983, 805 ILCS 5/1.01 et seq. (2012).

On November 17, 2014, the Second District Appellate Court held that service of process by an unlicensed private detective agency was defective, even though the individual employees who served the summonses were licensed private detectives.

On March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court held that waiver of personal jurisdiction by appearance does not apply retroactively to orders entered before the appearance, resolving a conflict in the appellate courts.

On June 20, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court held, first, that electronically filing ("e-filing") a postjudgment motion when circuit court rules required a paper copy did not fail to toll the time for filing a notice of appeal; and, second, that e-filing a notice of appeal when circuit court rules required a paper copy did not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction.

On March 29, 2013, the first district appellate court answered, in response to a certified question, that service by publication on an adjudicated disabled person did not satisfy due process because it was unreasonable to expect that the ward would see or comprehend the published notice.

Difficulty in transporting documents, witnesses residing in Mississippi, and the fact that the alleged wrongful acts occurred in Mississippi were not enough to demonstrate an inconvenient forum under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District.

A circuit court may exercise jurisdiction over a class action against a gas utility alleging that the utility violated state law by attempting to collect debts discharged in bankruptcy, according to the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois.

An Illinois court affirmed a decision denying Chrysler Canada, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because Chrysler had sufficient minimum contacts.

An Illinois Appellate Court found that a prior court's resolution of an issue arising under federal patent law was sufficient to allow a state court to claim subject matter jurisdiction where there were no other remaining issues arising under federal patent law.

Service by publication only establishes personal jurisdiction in an eminent domain case where the entity seizing land has diligently searched for all potential parties to the action, according to an Illinois Court of Appeals ruling.

On November 16, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, held that personal service on a parent is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act for modification of a foreign child support order.

On November 5, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, reversed and remanded a decision of the Circuit Court of Champaign County, finding personal jurisdiction over a California corporation in a retaliatory discharge case.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, in June upheld a motion to dismiss from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, finding that "a seller of an item on eBay, without further ties to a forum, is not subject to specific jurisdiction in that forum."

On December 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon interstate forum non conveniens.

On December 28, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the holding of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction.