Swett v. Village of Algonquin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when there was no duty under section 3--102 of the Act, there could also be no duty under sections 3--103 and 3--104 of the Act
• holding that when there was no duty under section 3 — 102 of the Act, there could also be no duty under sections 3 — 103 and 3 — 104 of the Act
• restaurant owed plaintiffs no duty to protect them from motorists traveling on public roadway located between restaurant and its parking lot
• restaurant owed no duty to protect pedestrians from motorists on public roadway
• in assessing a dismissal under section 2-615 of the Code, “[f]acts which are not well pleaded will not be considered by the court [citation], and conclusions of law or fact unsupported by specific facts in the record are not deemed to be admitted as true”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).