Foundations of Chicago Civil Litigation:
An Expert Report on Illinois Civil Law
This report provides an in-depth analysis of the procedural, statutory, and substantive doctrines
governing civil litigation in Chicago, centered on the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (ILCS) and
relevant Supreme Court precedent. The framework highlights significant strategic differences
from federal practice, particularly concerning pleading standards, discovery rules, and specific
tort immunities and damage limitations.
I. Strategic Overview of Illinois Civil Procedure and
Pleading Standards
The foundational phase of litigation in Illinois state court is defined by its distinct fact-pleading
requirements and the strictly bifurcated regime for pre-trial dispositive motions.
I.A. The Liberal Illinois Fact Pleading Standard
Illinois courts utilize a standard of fact pleading, requiring a complaint to allege sufficient "sets of
facts" from which the plaintiff can recover, rather than merely stating legal conclusions. This
standard was affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Marshall v. Burger King Corp., where the
court held that sufficient factual allegations established a duty of care owed by a business invitor
to its invitee.
This state standard creates a crucial divergence from the plausibility pleading requirement
mandated in federal courts under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal. The comparatively more lenient bar in Illinois means that
a case that might be dismissed in federal court for failing the plausibility test can often survive a
motion to dismiss in Cook County state court. This lower factual threshold significantly impacts
strategic litigation planning, especially for defense counsel. The initial attack on the facial
insufficiency of a claim (a motion under 735 ILCS 5/2-615) becomes less effective, often
allowing the plaintiff access to critical discovery materials early in the case. Consequently,
defense strategy often shifts the dispositive focus toward developing facts for a motion for
summary judgment later in the process.
Procedurally, Illinois has also modernized its verification requirements. Pleadings, affidavits, and
other documents filed in court no longer require swearing before an authorized person, provided
they are certified in accordance with the verification by certification requirements detailed in 735
ILCS § 5/1-109, unless a specific Supreme Court Rule states otherwise.
I.B. Pre-Trial Dispositive Motions: 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 5/2-619
Illinois law requires strict fidelity in distinguishing between motions that attack the legal
sufficiency of the complaint and those that assert an affirmative defense. Motions combining
these distinct statutory bases (known as "hybrid motions") are strongly discouraged by Illinois
courts and often lead to procedural confusion and potential reversible error if the non-moving
, party can show prejudice.
1. Section 2-615: Motions With Respect To Pleadings (735 ILCS 5/2-615)
The primary purpose of a 2-615 motion is to attack defects that are visible solely on the face of
the pleadings, focusing on formal or substantive legal insufficiency. Grounds for filing include
asserting that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, failing to
allege essential elements in the cause of action, or seeking to make the pleading more definite
and certain. Because the motion focuses exclusively on the legal adequacy of the complaint
itself, the use of affidavits asserting facts outside the complaint is generally improper.
Furthermore, answering the complaint effectively waives all objections regarding formal defects
in the pleading.
2. Section 2-619: Involuntary Dismissal Based on Affirmative Matter (735 ILCS
5/2-619)
A 2-619 motion provides a mechanism for summary disposition by asserting affirmative matters
that legally defeat or bar the plaintiff’s claim. These grounds are enumerated and go beyond the
four corners of the pleading. Key grounds include: lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of
legal capacity to sue or be sued, the pendency of another action, the action being barred by a
prior judgment (res judicata), the claim being barred by the Statute of Limitations, or the claim
being released, satisfied, or discharged (e.g., in bankruptcy). Since these motions rely on
external facts, the moving party is required to attach affidavits or other evidence if the affirmative
matter is not apparent on the face of the pleading. Unlike formal defects addressed by a 2-615
motion, failure to raise 2-619 affirmative grounds by motion does not constitute a waiver, as
these defenses may still be asserted in the answer.
For cases deemed non-jury matters, or where a jury trial has been waived, the court has unique
procedural options when reviewing a 2-619 motion: it may either deny the motion without
prejudice and allow the defense to be re-raised in the answer, or it may hold an evidentiary
hearing to resolve the underlying factual dispute.
The procedural clarity demanded by Illinois courts regarding the distinction between these two
motion types necessitates that legal counsel specifically designate the statutory section under
which relief is sought. This commitment to procedural rigor ensures that both parties and the
court are clear on whether the challenge is aimed at the legal theory of the case (2-615) or the
existence of a factual or statutory defense (2-619).
Table I: Comparative Analysis of ILCS 5/2-615 and 5/2-619 Motions
Feature 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (Pleading 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (Involuntary
Defects) Dismissal)
Focus of Attack Legal sufficiency or formal Assertion of affirmative
defects apparent on the face matters (e.g., Statute of
of the complaint. Limitations, Release) that bar
recovery, often requiring
extrinsic evidence.
Key Grounds Failure to state a claim, lack of Statute of Limitations, Prior
essential elements. Judgment, Lack of Jurisdiction,
Statute of Frauds,
Release/Satisfaction.
An Expert Report on Illinois Civil Law
This report provides an in-depth analysis of the procedural, statutory, and substantive doctrines
governing civil litigation in Chicago, centered on the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (ILCS) and
relevant Supreme Court precedent. The framework highlights significant strategic differences
from federal practice, particularly concerning pleading standards, discovery rules, and specific
tort immunities and damage limitations.
I. Strategic Overview of Illinois Civil Procedure and
Pleading Standards
The foundational phase of litigation in Illinois state court is defined by its distinct fact-pleading
requirements and the strictly bifurcated regime for pre-trial dispositive motions.
I.A. The Liberal Illinois Fact Pleading Standard
Illinois courts utilize a standard of fact pleading, requiring a complaint to allege sufficient "sets of
facts" from which the plaintiff can recover, rather than merely stating legal conclusions. This
standard was affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Marshall v. Burger King Corp., where the
court held that sufficient factual allegations established a duty of care owed by a business invitor
to its invitee.
This state standard creates a crucial divergence from the plausibility pleading requirement
mandated in federal courts under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal. The comparatively more lenient bar in Illinois means that
a case that might be dismissed in federal court for failing the plausibility test can often survive a
motion to dismiss in Cook County state court. This lower factual threshold significantly impacts
strategic litigation planning, especially for defense counsel. The initial attack on the facial
insufficiency of a claim (a motion under 735 ILCS 5/2-615) becomes less effective, often
allowing the plaintiff access to critical discovery materials early in the case. Consequently,
defense strategy often shifts the dispositive focus toward developing facts for a motion for
summary judgment later in the process.
Procedurally, Illinois has also modernized its verification requirements. Pleadings, affidavits, and
other documents filed in court no longer require swearing before an authorized person, provided
they are certified in accordance with the verification by certification requirements detailed in 735
ILCS § 5/1-109, unless a specific Supreme Court Rule states otherwise.
I.B. Pre-Trial Dispositive Motions: 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 5/2-619
Illinois law requires strict fidelity in distinguishing between motions that attack the legal
sufficiency of the complaint and those that assert an affirmative defense. Motions combining
these distinct statutory bases (known as "hybrid motions") are strongly discouraged by Illinois
courts and often lead to procedural confusion and potential reversible error if the non-moving
, party can show prejudice.
1. Section 2-615: Motions With Respect To Pleadings (735 ILCS 5/2-615)
The primary purpose of a 2-615 motion is to attack defects that are visible solely on the face of
the pleadings, focusing on formal or substantive legal insufficiency. Grounds for filing include
asserting that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, failing to
allege essential elements in the cause of action, or seeking to make the pleading more definite
and certain. Because the motion focuses exclusively on the legal adequacy of the complaint
itself, the use of affidavits asserting facts outside the complaint is generally improper.
Furthermore, answering the complaint effectively waives all objections regarding formal defects
in the pleading.
2. Section 2-619: Involuntary Dismissal Based on Affirmative Matter (735 ILCS
5/2-619)
A 2-619 motion provides a mechanism for summary disposition by asserting affirmative matters
that legally defeat or bar the plaintiff’s claim. These grounds are enumerated and go beyond the
four corners of the pleading. Key grounds include: lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of
legal capacity to sue or be sued, the pendency of another action, the action being barred by a
prior judgment (res judicata), the claim being barred by the Statute of Limitations, or the claim
being released, satisfied, or discharged (e.g., in bankruptcy). Since these motions rely on
external facts, the moving party is required to attach affidavits or other evidence if the affirmative
matter is not apparent on the face of the pleading. Unlike formal defects addressed by a 2-615
motion, failure to raise 2-619 affirmative grounds by motion does not constitute a waiver, as
these defenses may still be asserted in the answer.
For cases deemed non-jury matters, or where a jury trial has been waived, the court has unique
procedural options when reviewing a 2-619 motion: it may either deny the motion without
prejudice and allow the defense to be re-raised in the answer, or it may hold an evidentiary
hearing to resolve the underlying factual dispute.
The procedural clarity demanded by Illinois courts regarding the distinction between these two
motion types necessitates that legal counsel specifically designate the statutory section under
which relief is sought. This commitment to procedural rigor ensures that both parties and the
court are clear on whether the challenge is aimed at the legal theory of the case (2-615) or the
existence of a factual or statutory defense (2-619).
Table I: Comparative Analysis of ILCS 5/2-615 and 5/2-619 Motions
Feature 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (Pleading 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (Involuntary
Defects) Dismissal)
Focus of Attack Legal sufficiency or formal Assertion of affirmative
defects apparent on the face matters (e.g., Statute of
of the complaint. Limitations, Release) that bar
recovery, often requiring
extrinsic evidence.
Key Grounds Failure to state a claim, lack of Statute of Limitations, Prior
essential elements. Judgment, Lack of Jurisdiction,
Statute of Frauds,
Release/Satisfaction.
