In Re Doe

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiff, who suffered, in part, from post-traumatic stress disorder, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and who required the appointment of a guardian, was not disabled for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations
• noting that where a person “can comprehend the nature of the injury and its implications” the person is not legally disabled

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bloom v. Braun
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-11-01· cited 24×
• Mihelic v. Will County, Ill.
  N.D. Illinois· 2011-11-28· cited 7×
• Mickiewicz v. Generations at Regency, LLC
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-01-21· cited 2×
• People v. Abusharif
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-12-15· cited 2×
• Bloom v. Braun Nunc Pro Tunc to Sep. 20, 2000
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-11-01

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1993-08-26· cited 738×
• Zedella v. Gibson
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1995-04-20· cited 209×
• Sille v. McCann Construction Specialties Co.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1994-07-29· cited 26×
• Estate of Riha v. Christ Hospital
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1989-09-29· cited 26×
• Doe v. Catholic Archbishop
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1998-10-15· cited 3×