Gouge v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that ascertaining the existence of a duty is question of law
• stating that “plaintiffs have alleged no facts in their complaint, nor are any facts apparent, which would indicate that it was reasonably foreseeable that Gouge would deviate from [the roadway] and strike this utility pole”
• “the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, thereby also denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint” (emphasis added)
• motion mislabeled as a section 2-619 motion treated as a section 2-615 motion
• motion mislabeled as a section 2-619 motion treated as a section 2-615 motion
• discussing costs and burdens of imposing a duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).