About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/resndjmts0050 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations JUDGMENTS 2D Generally C.A.7, 2024. Cit. generally in sup. After the Governor of Illinois issued an executive order during a pandemic that required public-school personnel to be tested regularly for the pandemic disease unless they had been vaccinated against it, teachers and staff who were suspended or fired under the order filed a state-court action for equitable relief against the Governor under state law, as well as a separate action in federal court that added federal claims as well as claims for monetary damages. Following the governor's rescission of the executive order, the state court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in the state-court action as moot and the district court dismissed the federal action on the ground that it violated the rule against claim splitting. The court relied in part on sections of the Restatement Second of Judgments, noting that the Supreme Court of Illinois had declared that it followed the Restatement on issues concerning the preclusive effect of judgments. Svendsen v. Pritzker, 91 F.4th 876, 878. CHAPTER 2. VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS § 1. Requisites of a Valid Judgment Pa.Cmwlth.2024. Com. (a) quot. in disc. Employer filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against state workers' insurance fund, after it found that certain of employer's subcontracting entities were employees rather than independent contractors and that employer owed additional insurance premiums as a result. This court sustained in part fund's preliminary objections, holding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, because it involved a contract to which a Commonwealth agency was a party, and the Board of Claims retained exclusive jurisdiction over such claims despite the repeal of the Board of Claims Act. The court cited Restatement Second of Judgments § 1, Comment a, in noting that the class of cases a given tribunal could hear and its legal authority to adjudicate a given controversy derived from constitutional or statutory provisions establishing courts and providing for their jurisdiction. Empire Roofing & More, LLC v. Department of Labor & Industry, State Workers' Insurance Fund, 312 A.3d 400, 405. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.