Mund v. Brown

How courts have described this case

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

• holding this provision of section 20(a) in conflict with supreme court rules regarding interlocutory jurisdiction and unenforceable
• holding this provision of section 20(a) in conflict with supreme court rules regarding interlocutory jurisdiction and unenforceable
• explaining that the denial of a motion to dismiss the case pursuant to the Citizen Participation Act was not an injunctive ruling that was appealable under Rule 307(a)(1)
• “ ‘[T]he appellate court has *** [a] duty to consider its jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the case.’ ” (quoting Almgren v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 162 Ill. 2d 205, 210, 642 N.E.2d 1225 (1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).