Long v. Elborno

How courts have described this case

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

• even if hospital had notice of the pending action prior to being served, this fact alone fails to overcome plaintiff's seven-month delay in effectuating service
• “[D]elay, even when inadvertent and unintentional, provides no support for Long’s position because the reasonable diligence requirement in Supreme Court Rule 103(b
• seven-month delay sufficient to affirm - 30 - No. 1-20-1357 dismissal with prejudice under Rule 103(b)
• seven months between filing and service supports a finding of lack of reasonable diligence
• “[T]he defendant is not required to establish that it was prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay.”
• seven months between filing and service supports a finding of lack of reasonable diligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).