Skip to main content
· 9/21/2006

Vine Street Clinic v. HealthLink, Inc.

Citations

  • 856 N.E.2d 422
  • 222 Ill. 2d 276
  • 305 Ill. Dec. 617
  • 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1108

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that arguments not raised in either the circuit or appellate court are forfeited
  • recognizing that arguments not raised in either the circuit or appellate court are forfeited
  • finding that a contention was not properly brought before the court where there was no citation to authority
  • recognizing uniqueness of physician-patient relationship, court treated element of reliance in apparent agency analysis differently in health-care context than in other contexts
  • refusing to enforce a contract that violated a statutory ban on fee sharing
  • failure to cite to relevant authority violates Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7)) and results in forfeiture of the argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Karmeier

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.