Cunningham v. Brown

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that where the bases for recovery are different, it does not matter that recovery under one would bar recovery of additional damages under the other
• declining to recognize a new common law action for damages caused by the negligent sale of liquor where the legislature had created a limited statutory remedy by enacting the Dram Shop Act
• declining to recognize a new common law action for damages caused by the negligent sale of liquor where the legislature had created a limited statutory remedy by enacting the Dram Shop Act
• upholding the recovery limit in the Dramshop Act of 1872 because there was no common law action for damages against a supplier of liquor for injuries inflicted by an intoxicated person or resulting from intoxication
• declining to recognize a new common law action for damages caused by the negligent sale of liquor where the legislature had created a limited statutory remedy by enacting the Dram Shop Act
• recovery against tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated persons limited to Illinois Dramshop Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).