735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/2-1005

Section 5/2-1005 permits summary judgment when the plaintiff has no evidence of proximate cause and therefore raises no genuine issue of material fact.

Strutz v. Vicere · filed 2009-04-29

Therefore, absent any evidence of the cause of Russell’s fall, there is no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of proximate cause and summary judgment in favor of defendants Christopher and Christine Vicere was proper.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment for a defendant when the plaintiff fails to present evidence supporting an essential element of the claim.

Rogers v. Matanda, Inc. · filed 2009-05-29(c)

Summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where the plaintiff has failed to establish an essential element of his cause of action.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when a claimant lacks evidence of an injury or damages necessary to sustain its claims.

Kim v. Hemingway House Condominium Assoc. · filed 2023-05-01(c)

As discussed below, we agree with the trial court that Kim was entitled to summary judgment because HHCA failed to establish proof of an injury or damages to support any cause of action in the third amended counterclaim.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when the plaintiff presents no evidence supporting an essential element of the claim.

Heimer v. Roundy's Illinois, LLC · filed 2025-12-09(c)

Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, do not support a conclusion or inference that defendant knew or should have known of the pothole or any defect in the parking lot prior to the incident. Therefore, the court properly granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment for a negligence defendant when the plaintiff cannot show facts from which a duty of care could be inferred.

Diaz v. Loyola University Medical Center · filed 2025-12-16(c)

Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2–1005(c) (West 2022). ... Without a showing from which a court could infer the existence of a duty, no recovery is possible as a matter of law and summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment for a defendant when the plaintiff fails to establish a required element of the claim.

Dimas v. Wheaton Eye Clinic, Ltd · filed 2025-12-22(c)

The plaintiff’s failure to establish any element of the cause of action may result in summary judgment for the defendant. ... Because Dimas failed to articulate a valid theory of liability, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Section 2-1005 requires the party seeking summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Roongseang · filed 2020-06-17

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012). ... Because plaintiff did not produce the return receipt, or otherwise provide proof of actual delivery, it has not met its evidentiary burden on summary judgment to show that it complied with the notice condition precedent. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Section 2-1005(c) requires the party seeking summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Courson v. Danville School District No. 118 · filed 1998-12-18(c)

Summary judgment may be granted only when “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(c) (West 1994). ... The District, which has the burden of proof on its motion for summary judgment, has not established that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Section 2-1005(c) requires a summary judgment movant to produce evidence contradicting a complaint’s allegations before the opponent must submit evidence supporting them.

Hernandez v. Rapid Bus Co. · filed 1994-10-06(c)

The movant in a summary judgment proceeding is the burdened party. The respondent has no obligation to submit evidentiary material in support of the allegations in her complaint until the movant has first come forward with evidentiary material contradicting those allegations. In the absence of evidentiary material submitted by the movant, the respondent can rely upon the allegations in her complaint to establish a genuine issue of fact.

Section 2-1005(c) requires the moving party to establish a right to judgment as a matter of law, even when the opposing party files no counteraffidavit.

Soderlund Bros., Inc. v. Carrier Corp. · filed 1995-11-17(c)

Stated another way, where the party opposing summary judgment fails to file counteraffidavits, the moving party should not be awarded summary judgment unless the affidavits filed in support of that motion establish the right to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 2-1005(c) requires a summary judgment movant to provide competent evidence for each fact needed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Groce v. South Chicago Community Hospital · filed 1996-05-30(c)

Dr. Day’s answer to the hypothetical question posed during his deposition could only form the basis of a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Mathur if the record before the trial court also contained competent, uncontradicted evidentiary material in support of each of the three factual components upon which the hypothetical question was based. Having failed to introduce competent evidentiary material supporting two of those three factual components, Dr. Mathur failed to establish his right to judgment as a matter of law and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in his favor.

Section 2-1005(c) requires the party seeking summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Shannon v. Boise Cascade · filed 2003-01-31(c)

The present case, however, is decided on a motion for summary judgment, where it is Boise Cascade's burden to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Boise Cascade has not shown that plaintiffs were not, in some manner, deceived.

A defendant seeking summary judgment must first produce evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the plaintiff must respond with evidence.

Paul H. Schwendener, Inc. v. Jupiter Electric Co. · filed 2005-05-11(c)

A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of coming forward with competent evidentiary material, which, if uncontradicted, entitles him to judgment as a matter of law. ... Because Knopfler failed to provide any evidence establishing that he did not participate in Jupiter’s decision to stop working on the Schwendener contracts, the burden never shifted to Schwendener to present evidence establishing that Knopfler did participate in that decision.

When a defendant seeks summary judgment by challenging an element of the claim, and neither side submits evidence on that issue, the plaintiff’s complaint raises a material issue of fact.

Willett v. Cessna Aircraft Co. · filed 2006-05-04(c)

Where neither side supports its allegations with evidence, and the issue does not concern an affirmative defense but negation of an element of the cause of action, this court must accept plaintiff’s complaint as raising a material issue of fact.

A defendant seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing entitlement to judgment; an unsupported assertion that the plaintiff lacks evidence does not satisfy that burden.

Nedzvekas v. Fung · filed 2007-06-26(c)

We, therefore, conclude that the defendant’s assertion was insufficient to establish that the necessary expert testimony could not be presented at trial. Consequently, the defendant failed to meet his burden of production, and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on her pleading to create an issue of material fact.

When a defendant seeks summary judgment on an affirmative defense, its materials need only establish its factual position; the opposing party must then identify record evidence supporting a contrary version.

Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. v. TradeMaven, L.L.C. · filed 2009-05-06(c)

When the moving party is a defendant, as in this case, the materials need only establish the defendant’s factual position on the affirmative defense raised. Winnetka Bank v. Mandas, 202 Ill. App. 3d 373, 387 (1990). Once the movant has carried that burden, the respondent may not rely on the factual issues raised by the pleadings, but must submit affidavits or refer to depositions or admissions on file that present a contrary version of the facts.

A defendant who shows an absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim shifts the summary judgment burden of production to the plaintiff to show a genuine factual dispute or another reason judgment is unwarranted.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Barrera · filed 2020-12-07(c)

If Barrera satisfied his initial burden of production in the summary judgment proceeding, the burden of production would shift to the bank to present evidence to establish that there are genuine issues of material fact and/or that Barrera was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 2-1005(c) places the burden on the summary judgment movant; the opposing party may rely on its complaint without answering the motion.

City of Wheaton v. Jones · filed 2023-03-29(c)

As Judge Sexton had explained, however, the City was not required to file an answer to avoid a grant of summary judgment because Jones bore the burden of proving the merits of his motion and the City could stand on the factual allegations in its complaint.

Section 2-1005 requires a nonmovant to present a factual basis that could support judgment once the summary judgment movant meets its initial burden.

Price v. Lunan Roberts, Inc. · filed 2023-06-20

After a summary judgment movant meets the initial burden of proof and production, the non-movant must present a factual basis that would arguably entitle her to a judgment in order to survive the motion.

Section 2-1005(c) allows a defendant seeking summary judgment based on a plaintiff’s lack of proof to meet its initial burden by identifying the missing evidence.

Ocampo v. Grossinger City Autocorp,Inc. · filed 2023-09-19(c)

However, on a Celotex-type motion, the defendant satisfies its initial burden of production when it “ ‘points out’ the absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position.”

Section 2-1005 requires a defendant to raise lack of evidence as a ground for summary judgment before the plaintiff must produce evidence on every element of the claim.

O'Donnell v. Bailey & Associates Counseling & Psychotherapy LLC · filed 2023-12-22(c)

Only where a defendant files a motion for summary judgment based on a lack of evidence, i.e., a Celotex motion, is the plaintiff obligated to come forward with evidence on all aspects of the claim.

Section 2-1005(c) requires the party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party may defeat the motion with evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Herzog · filed 2024-01-23(c)

If Wilmington Savings first demonstrates that the release was invalid for lack of consideration, it will have proven that it is ... entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, unless Herzog comes forth with some evidence to create a genuine issue regarding consideration.

A defendant can meet its initial summary judgment burden by presenting evidence that, if uncontradicted, would resolve an element of the plaintiff’s claim in its favor.

Babczak v. Abbvie Corporation · filed 2026-05-18(c)

As to causation, we first determine that AbbVie met its initial burden of production by presenting evidence which, if uncontradicted, showed that the element of causation must be resolved in its favor.

A party seeking summary judgment based on insufficient evidence of an essential element must do more than assert that the evidence is lacking before the burden shifts to the opposing party.

Stearns v. Ridge Ambulance Service, Inc. · filed 2015-05-15(c)

A party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of production that can be met in either of two ways: “(1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff’s case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) [citation], or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (Celotex [Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986),] test) [citations].” Williams v. Covenant Medical Center, 316 Ill. App. 3d 682, 688-89 (2000). ... The bare assertion that plaintiff could not establish proximate cause was insufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to come forward with evidence of proximate cause. Id. at 690.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but leave may be denied when the request is untimely and the amendment would prejudice the opposing party.

United Conveyor Corp. v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2017-12-05(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a litigant to amend pleadings upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of summary judgment. ... We have considered each of the Loyola factors and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying United’s motion for leave to amend.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but leave may be denied when the request is untimely, the party had earlier opportunities to amend, and the new claim would prejudice the opponent.

United Conveyor Corp. v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2018-03-02(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a litigant to amend pleadings upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of summary judgment. ... None of the Loyola factors favored United’s untimely request to amend and, thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying United’s motion.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but does not provide for supplementing a pleading.

McNerney v. Allamuradov · filed 2017-06-30(g)

For example, section 2-1005(g) permits “pleadings” to be amended upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of a summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2014). Her motion to supplement, however, does not seek an amendment of a “pleading.”

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment, but does not provide for supplementing a motion or summary judgment response.

McNerney v. Allamuradov · filed 2017-11-09(g)

For example, section 2-1005(g) permits “pleadings” to be amended upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of a summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2014). Her motion to supplement, however, does not seek an amendment of a “pleading.”

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but leave may be denied when an amendment cannot cure the claim’s defect.

Assuredpartners, Inc. v. Schmitt · filed 2016-01-29(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2012)) provides that “[b]efore or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” ... Plaintiffs, however, cannot cure the defects in these Restrictive Covenants by merely rewording, or “rephrasing” their original claims, as the circuit court pointed out. ... We find no error in the circuit court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request to file the proposed amended claims under counts III, IV, and V of the second amended complaint with prejudice.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendments after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms; a court may deny leave when the proposed amendment is untimely, prejudicial, and follows earlier opportunities to amend.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Basile · filed 2014-12-04(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) expressly provides, in pertinent part, that “after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2010). ... In light of all these facts, we hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses after summary judgment was entered.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendments before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms; a court may deny leave when the amendment would be futile.

Stasko v. The City of Chicago · filed 2013-11-21(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that “[b]efore or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2012). ... Accordingly, any amendment to the complaint as to count I would be futile, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend that count.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms; leave may be denied when the amendment would not cure defects, would prejudice the other party, is untimely, and could have been sought earlier.

Geisler v. Everest National Insurance Company · filed 2012-11-16(g)

In support of his motion for leave to amend, plaintiff cites section 2-1005(g) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which states: “Before or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2008). ... We cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and for leave to file a second amended complaint. ... Further, plaintiff’s second amended complaint did not cure defects in the pleadings, granting the motion would cause prejudice to defendants, plaintiff’s attempt to amend the pleadings was not timely, and plaintiff did not attempt to file a second amended complaint at an earlier date.

Section 2-1005(g) permits denial of a proposed amendment after summary judgment when the amendment would not cure the defect.

Cornerstone Bank v. Consolidated Grain · filed 2011-06-27(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Civil Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2008)) provides that "after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just or reasonable terms." ... Therefore, the proposed amendments would not have rendered summary judgment inappropriate in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for leave to file an amended count I.

Section 2-1005 permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms; a court may deny an amendment that would not cure a defective pleading.

Judge-Zeit v. General Parking Corp. · filed 2007-09-26(g)

Pursuant to section 2 — 1005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005 (West 2004)), the trial court shall permit pleadings to be amended before or after entry of summary judgment upon just and reasonable terms. ... In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the plaintiffs proposed amendment would not have cured the defective pleading.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but a court may deny a belated amendment when the party had earlier opportunities to raise it.

Hartzog v. Martinez · filed 2007-03-30(g)

Thus, since plaintiffs had sufficient previous opportunity to make an amendment, the circuit court was well within the latitude of its discretion to deny their belated motion for leave to amend.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment around summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but a party must seek leave and submit a proposed amended complaint to challenge a refusal to permit amendment.

Harlin v. Sears Roebuck and Co. · filed 2006-12-11(g)

The test, however, is premised on the filing of a proposed amended complaint. The plaintiffs in this case never sought leave to file an amended complaint, and no proposed amended complaint was submitted to the trial court. Under these circumstances, the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion.

Section 2-1005(g) permits pleadings to be amended on just and reasonable terms before or after summary judgment.

Schroeder v. Northwest Community Hospital · filed 2006-12-12(g)

Additionally, it should be noted that before or after the entry of summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(g) (West 2004). Therefore, upon remand plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to amend her complaint in order to add the names of all of the nurses, including Deborah Hattendorf, who participated in the care and treatment of decedent.

Section 2-1005(g) broadly permits pleading amendments, but a trial court may deny an amendment when the moving party has already had ample opportunities to make it.

John Burns Construction Co. v. Indiana Insurance · filed 1998-09-11(g)

Under this section, the right to amend is very broad. ... Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying John Burns’ and Royal’s motion to file an amended complaint. It is clear that Royal had abundant opportunities to amend the complaint to add the count based on the excess carrier provision in its own policy.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after judgment when just and reasonable, but leave may be denied when the proposed claims would circumvent a statutory prohibition.

Greiner v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. · filed 1995-06-23(g)

Section 2 — 1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after judgment where just and reasonable. ... Allowing plaintiff to proceed tinder the theories presented in the proposed amended complaint would circumvent the statutory sections which prohibit a salesperson from dealing directly with a client. ... Thus, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the amended complaint.

Section 2-1005(g) permits pleadings to be amended before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, including to add a late affirmative defense when the opposing party is not prejudiced.

Ocasek v. City of Chicago · filed 1995-08-22(g)

Furthermore, section 2—616(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides that amendments adding new defenses may be allowed at any time prior to final judgment (735 ILCS 5/2—616(a) (West 1992)); and section 2—1005(g) provides that "[bjefore or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms” (735 ILCS 5/2—1005(g) (West 1992); see also In re Estate of Hoover (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 402, 416, 615 N.E.2d 736 (circuit court must "permit amendment if it will further the ends of justice”)). ... Consequently, we conclude that plaintiffs’ waiver argument is untenable.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment after summary judgment when the record supports another viable theory, but does not require repleading a claim already resolved by summary judgment.

Steinberg v. Dunseth · filed 1995-11-27(g)

We do not read section 2-1005(g) to require the court to allow the useless act of repleading claims on which it has already decided that summary judgment is required. Amendment may be appropriate, however, where summary judgment is entered on the theory pleaded, but the depositions and affidavits indicate that another theory is viable.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment before or after summary judgment, but leave may be denied when the proposed amendment cannot state a viable claim in light of the evidence submitted.

Lajato v. AT & T, INC. · filed 1996-08-09(g)

Notwithstanding waiver, even if we were to review the amendment that plaintiff orally proposed, we would find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying plaintiff leave to amend. As already discussed, there was ample evidence before the trial court to support its conclusion that the facts in this case as revealed in the summary judgment submissions would not permit a pleading which could allege a valid cause of action.

Section 2-1005(g) permits pleading amendments after summary judgment, but a request for leave to amend does not itself extend the time to appeal.

Berg v. Allied Security, Inc. · filed 2000-07-06(g)

A post-judgment motion for leave to amend the complaint is not a motion directed against the judgment and therefore does not extend the time for appeal. ... Plaintiff's invocation of section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 1998)) does not change our analysis. Section 2-1005(g) specifically permits the amendment of pleadings before or after the entry of summary judgment.

Section 2-1005(g) permits a party to amend a complaint after summary judgment, subject to the trial court’s discretion.

Zubi v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance · filed 2001-05-21(g)

Amendments to a complaint are permissible at any time prior to final judgment (735 ILCS 5/2—616(a) (West 1998)), even after an award of summary judgment (735 ILCS 5/2—1005(g) (West 1998)).

Section 2-1005(g) allows a party to seek leave to amend after final summary judgment; a motion filed within 30 days preserves the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on it after that period.

Holtz v. Crown · filed 2005-06-02(g)

There is no reason to treat a motion for leave to amend a complaint pursuant to section 2 — 1005(g) differently. Accordingly, as long as a party files the motion within the requisite 30-day period, the trial court retains jurisdiction to rule on the motion beyond the 30 days from the entry of the final judgment.

Section 2-1005(g) permits pleading amendments before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but a court may deny an amendment that contradicts sworn evidence in the record.

Shutkas Electric, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2006-05-01(g)

Pursuant to section 2 — 1005(g), the trial court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(g) (West 2002). ... The trial court was within its discretion to deny plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint that contradicted the entire record, including sworn deposition statements and interrogatories.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment of pleadings before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms, but leave may be denied when an amendment would be futile.

Stasko v. The City of Chicago · filed 2013-09-30(g)

Section 2-1005(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that “[b]efore or after the entry of a ... summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” ... Accordingly, any amendment to the complaint as to count I would be futile, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend that count.

Section 2-1005(g) permits amendment while a summary judgment motion is pending, but leave may be denied when the request is untimely and would prejudice the opposing party.

Lyons v. Gorens · filed 2021-06-04(g)

Moreover, section 2-1005(g) of the Code permits plaintiffs to amend the complaint while a summary judgment motion is pending. ... Plaintiffs’ request was untimely and the complaint could have been amended earlier.

Section 2-1005(g) requires courts to permit pleading amendments on just and reasonable terms before or after summary judgment.

Regaldo v. Randall · filed 2022-01-31(g)

Moreover, “[b]efore or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2020). ... Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Regalado’s motion to amend.

Section 2-1005(g) permits pleading amendments before or after summary judgment on just and reasonable terms; a court may deny an untimely amendment that would prejudice the opposing party.

Shelter Mutal Insurance Co. v. Flynn · filed 2023-03-31(g)

The trial court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms before or after the entry of summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2016); ... We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flynn’s motion to amend.

Section 2-1005(g) requires courts to permit amendments to pleadings, including affirmative defenses, on just and reasonable terms before or after summary judgment.

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Catchins · filed 2023-05-05(g)

However, the court erred by striking the amended affirmative defense, which was properly pleaded, while simultaneously granting summary judgment to the opposing party. This deprived the defendants of a fair opportunity to properly frame their defense of incapacity. In fact, section 2-1005(g) of the Code requires: “[b]efore or after the entry of a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2020).

Section 2-1005 provides the summary judgment procedure for using evidence to contest the truth of a complaint’s factual allegations.

Anderson v. Anchor Organization for Health Maintenance · filed 1995-08-24

Based upon the theories argued in the motion and its supporting memorandum, it is clear that Chessick not only presented an impermissible hybrid motion commingling theories of relief under sections 2 — 615 and 2 — 619 (see Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 638, 450 N.E.2d 1360), but also commingled arguments going to the truth of the allegations contained in Travis’ complaint which could only have been properly raised by a motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to section 2 — 1005 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005 (West 1992); see Longust v. Peabody Coal Co. (1986), 151 Ill. App. 3d 754, 502 N.E.2d 1096).

Section 2-1005 permits summary judgment for a party without a pending motion when the opposing party’s summary judgment motion is before the court.

Dixon v. Mercury Finance Co. of Wisconsin · filed 1998-05-06

Plaintiff's had filed a motion for summary judgment, which was properly before the trial court. The denial of plaintiffs’ motion was effectively a ruling in favor of defendants even though defendants had no pending motion for summary judgment.

Section 2-1005 permits summary judgment in a party’s favor only if that party requests it.

Washington v. Flash Aquisitions, LLC · filed 2021-02-26(a), (b)

Section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes clear that summary judgment may not be granted in favor of a party unless that party requests it.

A party need not raise a pretrial partial summary judgment ruling in a post-trial motion to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Mohn v. Posegate · filed 1998-12-17(d)

Thus, we conclude that, as in a nonjury case in which a post-judgment motion need not be filed, a party need not raise in a post-trial motion any issue concerning the pretrial entry of summary judgment as to part of a cause of action in order to preserve the issue for review.

Section 2-1005’s summary judgment standards apply when reviewing an administrative agency’s summary determination.

Bloom Township High School v. Illinois Commerce Commission · filed 1999-11-24

Because of the similarities in the two procedures, it is appropriate to apply the standards applicable to granting summary judgment under section 2 — 1005 when reviewing a summary determination entered by an administrative agency.

Section 2-1005's summary judgment standards apply when reviewing an administrative agency's summary disposition.

Bloom Township HS v. Commerce Comm'n · filed 1999-11-24

Because of the similarities in the two procedures, it is appropriate to apply the standards applicable to granting summary judgment under section 2-1005 when reviewing a summary determination entered by an administrative agency.

Section 2-1005’s summary judgment rules do not govern the Labor Relations Board’s dismissal of a representation petition without a hearing.

Illinois Council of Police v. Illinois Labor Relations Board · filed 2008-12-19

Unlike in Cano, in the present case, the language of section 9(a) of the Act ... in no way parallels the rules of summary judgment articulated in section 2 — 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A motion labeled as one for summary judgment is treated as a motion to dismiss when it challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint and treating it as summary judgment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

Ganci v. Washington · filed 2001-01-17(c)

We conclude that defendants’ motion as to count I should be considered a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss and not a motion for summary judgment. We agree with Ganci that to treat the motion as one for summary judgment would result in unfair prejudice to him.

Section 2-1005 permits a court to treat a motion as one for summary judgment when it requests that relief, even if its body requests dismissal under section 2-619.

Shuttlesworth v. City of Chicago · filed 2007-11-05

The body of the motion requested dismissal pursuant to section 2 — 619 of the Code ... (735 ILCS 5/2—619 (West 2004)); however, the conclusion of the motion requested that summary judgment be entered in favor of the City. We will consider the City’s motion as a motion for summary judgment under section 2—1005 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2—1005 (West 2004)).

Section 2-1005 summary judgment is unavailable to the State on an application for recovery under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.

People v. Trainor · filed 2001-05-24

The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that “summary judgment is a civil remedy that has no place in sexually dangerous person proceedings.” 312 111. App. 3d 860, 862. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the appellate court, which remanded the cause for a jury trial on defendant’s application.

A grant of summary judgment under section 2-1005 is reviewed de novo on appeal.

Guzman v. C.R. Epperson Construction, Inc. · filed 2001-06-21

The matter comes to this court upon the circuit court's granting of (i) three motions to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) and (ii) one motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005. An appeal from a section 2-619 dismissal is the same in nature as one following a grant of summary judgment; both are matters given to de novo review.

Summary judgment orders under section 2-1005 receive de novo review on appeal.

Lozman v. Putnam · filed 2008-02-19

This court will also apply a de novo standard of review to grants of motions to dismiss under section 2 — 615 (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2000)) and motions for summary judgment (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005 (West 2000)).

A summary judgment ruling is reviewed de novo, including when it resolves a claim under section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code.

Nine Group II, LLC v. Liberty International Underwriters, Inc. · filed 2020-06-18(c)

Applying Ehlco in the instant case, we must utilize the standard of review that is appropriate for a summary judgment motion; our review is thus de novo.

Review of a summary judgment ruling is limited to the record before the circuit court when it ruled.

Decker v. Thao · filed 2023-04-07(c)

As Decker’s contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred in granting Thao’s motion for summary judgment, we must confine our review to the record as it existed when the court ruled on Thao’s motion.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when no material fact is genuinely disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A later affidavit contradicting the party’s deposition testimony does not create a fact dispute that prevents summary judgment.

Morris v. Margulis · filed 2001-07-19(c)

Summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and *** the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” ... This affidavit, however, contradicts his deposition testimony, and we have held previously that a party’s later submission of an affidavit inconsistent with that party’s deposition testimony will not raise a disputed issue of fact or prevent the entry of summary judgment.

Section 2-1005 provides the summary judgment procedure for resolving factual involvement; using a motion to dismiss instead does not require reversal when the plaintiff suffers no prejudice.

Traube v. Freund · filed 2002-08-14

We believe that the trial court correctly dismissed plaintiffs complaint against American Cyanamid, although with respect to the extent of American Cyanamid’s involvement in the application of pesticide to the Freund farm or the creation of any nuisance, the proper vehicle should have been through a summary judgment pursuant to section 2 — 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2— 1005 (West 1994)). ... The misdesignation, however, is not critical under the circumstances, given that the motions are essentially the same and plaintiff suffered no prejudice by the error.

Section 2-1005 provides the procedure for a motion challenging the factual sufficiency of a claim; a mislabeled dismissal motion may be treated as a summary judgment motion when the opposing party suffers no prejudice.

Hooke v. Montessori School of Lake Forest · filed 2023-11-02

The proper vehicle would have been a motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2020)). ... Therefore, we shall construe defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment.

Section 2-1005 requires notice and an opportunity to respond in writing before a court grants summary judgment.

Sanchez v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-09-30(c)

Following the reasoning in Peterson, we find the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment for the City without giving the plaintiff notice or an opportunity to respond in writing.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment on an ambiguous contract when extrinsic evidence leaves no genuine issue of material fact about its meaning.

Richard W. McCarthy Trust v. Illinois Casualty Co. · filed 2011-02-24(c)

However, under the unique circumstances of the present case, an exception to the general rule applies and summary judgment may be granted because the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties leaves no genuine issue of material fact in dispute.

Section 2-1005(c) precludes summary judgment when an ambiguous contract requires extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent or a material fact remains disputed.

Epstein and Sons Intern., Inc. v. Eua, Inc. · filed 2011-03-08(c)

Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2008). ... The intent of the parties is ambiguous, and therefore, parol evidence must be considered in determining the parties' intent behind these documents. Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Summary judgment under section 2-1005 is improper when an ambiguous contract requires extrinsic evidence to establish its meaning.

William Blair & Co. v. Fi Liquidation Corp. · filed 2005-06-06(c)

When, however, the language of a contract is ambiguous, its meaning must be ascertained through a consideration of extrinsic evidence and summary judgment is, therefore, inappropriate. ... For the reasons that follow, we find that the term is ambiguous. As shall be discussed later on, if we find that the contract is ambiguous on its face, we must then consider whether summary judgment can be awarded based upon the extrinsic evidence submitted.

Section 2-1005 generally does not allow summary judgment when a contract has competing reasonable interpretations that require extrinsic evidence to resolve.

JLG Industries, Inc. v. Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Co. · filed 2019-12-13

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2018); Thompson, 241 Ill. 2d at 438. ... If a contract is ambiguous, then its meaning must be ascertained through the consideration of extrinsic evidence, and summary judgment is generally not appropriate. Gallagher, 226 Ill. 2d at 237. ... For the reasons that follow, we cannot agree that JLG’s interpretation was unambiguously correct. At the same time, neither can Tokio convince us that its interpretation is unambiguously correct. Therefore, neither party was entitled to summary judgement.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment on an ambiguous contract only if the extrinsic evidence leaves no genuine issue of material fact.

Palos Community Hospital v. Humana Insurance Co. · filed 2025-06-09(c)

Thus, the mere existence of a contractual ambiguity did not preclude the trial court from entering summary judgment, but it ... could do so only if the extrinsic evidence established that there was no genuine issue of material fact.

Section 2-1005 does not permit summary judgment on a theory absent from the operative complaint.

Perona v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · filed 2015-01-29(c)

Because the plaintiffs’ theory of the case, as pled in the sixth amended complaint, had always been that Audi withheld known information about specific defects in the Audi 5000 class vehicles, the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment on a new theory–the tendency or propensity of unintended acceleration–that had never been pled.

Section 2-1005(c) does not permit summary judgment on a theory that was never pleaded in a valid complaint.

Perona v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · filed 2014-12-08(c)

We find that the plaintiffs could not seek to recover on summary judgment on a theory that had never been a part of a validly filed complaint, particularly where this case had been pending for over a quarter of a century.

Section 2-1005(c) requires courts to determine the issues on summary judgment from the pleadings; a party cannot obtain judgment on a theory absent from its complaint.

Gold Realty Group Corp. v. Kismet Café, Inc. · filed 2005-06-30(c)

In deciding a motion for summary judgment the court considers the pleadings to determine what the issues are and in so doing it presupposes that the pleadings join the issue. ... The trial court entered summary judgment for the plaintiff on an issue entirely absent from the pleadings. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment for the plaintiff.

Section 2-1005 does not allow a party to seek summary judgment on new ultimate facts that were not pleaded in the complaint or added by amendment.

Filliung v. Adams · filed 2008-12-01(c)

Thus we find that the trial court was correct in striking the portions of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion that alleged new ultimate facts, not found in their complaint or amended to be there.

Section 2-1005(c) limits summary judgment to issues raised in the operative complaint; a plaintiff must amend the complaint before seeking judgment on an unpleaded theory.

Segal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-12-21(c)

Plaintiffs therefore could not move for summary judgment on the issue of Robin’s alleged lack of participation, and the issue of whether the property was vacant at the time of the fire loss was not part of any controversy ripe for summary judgment.

Section 2-1005(c) allows summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a theory first raised in opposition to the motion cannot defeat summary judgment.

Anderson v. Leszynski · filed 2021-05-17(c)

Summary judgment applies where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018). ... We agree with the trial court’s finding that it could not deny summary judgment based on an unpled theory raised for the first time in opposition to the motion.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists, and an unpleaded theory cannot create such an issue.

Haase v. Kankakee School District 111 · filed 2025-11-20(c)

Accordingly, whether the District acted willfully and wantonly in failing to disseminate information about Student A’s history to his teachers is not a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, it cannot be the basis for defeating summary judgment in this case.

Section 5/2-1005 limits summary judgment to issues raised in the pleadings; a plaintiff cannot defeat the motion by raising a new, unpleaded theory.

GID Group, LLC v. Village of Algonquin · filed 2026-03-02(c)

A response to a motion for summary judgment is just not the proper vehicle to assert new factual allegations and legal theories. ... Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Burke was proper.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment despite outstanding discovery when the requested information is irrelevant and unnecessary to respond to the motion.

Pederson v. Mi-Jack Products, Inc. · filed 2009-03-10(c)

Summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism to employ to dispose of a lawsuit where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(c) (West 2006). ... Because the information which Henkels sought was irrelevant and unnecessary for a response to Terex’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court did not err in denying Henkels’ motion to compel and awarding summary judgment in favor of Terex.

Section 2-1005 permits summary judgment after a motion to dismiss is denied when discovery shows no factual basis for the claim.

Fichtel v. Board of Directors of the River Shore of Naperville Condominium Ass'n · filed 2009-04-21

The trial court’s decisions were not inconsistent; they simply reflected the differences inherent in the two types of motions. At the pleading stage, the trial court allowed for the possibility that the Gattos could establish a factual basis to support a finding that State Farm owed them a duty outside the insurance contract; however, after reviewing the depositions and documents obtained in discovery, the trial court decided that the Gattos had failed to establish such a factual basis.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment in a quo warranto action when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

People Ex Rel. Alvarez v. Price · filed 2011-03-16(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2—1005(c) (West 2008). In a proper case, a quo warranto action may be decided by summary judgment. ... In sum, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to the State.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when a binding judicial admission defeats a claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Shelton v. OSF Saint Francis Medical Center · filed 2013-06-19(c)

Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2010). ... Having decided that plaintiff judicially admitted OSF terminated her employment, the trial court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of OSF with respect to the amended complaint.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when judicial admissions establish the essential terms of a contract and leave no genuine issue of material fact.

Dussias Skallas Wittenberg, LLP v. Minogue · filed 2020-05-19(c)

We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo (Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404, 417 (2008)), keeping in mind that summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and *** the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2016). ... Here, by contrast, Claudine has judicially admitted the existence of the contract and its essential terms. Johannesen does not preclude the entry of summary judgment under these facts. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DSW.

Section 2-1005(c) allows a court to consider certified depositions on summary judgment even if they were not filed.

Payne v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-09-25(c)

Although section 2-1005 refers to reliance on depositions that are “on file” (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2004)), the filing of depositions is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 207. ... Thus, under the current amended Rule 207(b), a deposition that is certified is considered authentic and can be relied upon.

Section 2-1005(c)'s reference to depositions “on file” does not require reversal when the court considers certified transcripts and the opposing party shows no prejudice.

Payne v. The City of Chicago · filed 2014-07-16(c)

Although section 2-1005 refers to reliance on depositions that are "on file" (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2004)), the filing of depositions is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 207. ... Plaintiff does not argue he suffered any prejudice. Therefore, we find the court's reliance on the depositions was not an ... abuse of discretion and reversal of summary judgment on this basis is not warranted.

An order denying a motion under section 2-1005(d) is interlocutory and cannot be appealed because it does not dispose of a claim.

McAnelly v. Southern Illinois Power Cooperative · filed 2020-01-24(d)

Any order denying a motion under section 2-1005(d) of the Code is not appealable because, by its very nature, such an order is interlocutory and not final because it does not dispose of a claim.

A denial of summary judgment based on genuine issues of material fact merges into the judgment after trial and is not appealable.

Wheeler Financial, Inc. v. Law Bulletin Publishing Co. · filed 2018-09-14(c)

The order denying the summary judgment motion, based on the presence of ... genuine issues of material fact, merged with the judgment entered on the verdict and is not appealable.

A denial of summary judgment remains reviewable after trial when the motion raised a question of law that the jury did not decide.

Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC · filed 2015-03-31

Here, the denial of summary judgment does not merge into the judgment because the issue raised in the motion—whether Young identified a law, rule or regulation that would have been violated had she engaged in the conduct refused—was a question of law that was not before the jury.

A denial of summary judgment remains reviewable after trial when the motion raised a question of law that the jury did not decide.

Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC · filed 2015-05-22(c)

Here, the denial of summary judgment does not merge into the judgment because the issue raised in the motion–whether Young identified a law, rule or regulation that would have been violated had she engaged in the conduct refused–was a question of law that was not before the jury.

A denial of summary judgment based on disputed facts merges into the judgment after trial and is not appealable.

Wheeler Financial, Inc. v. Law Bulletin Publishing Co. · filed 2019-07-25

The order denying the summary judgment motion, based on the presence of genuine issues of material fact, merged with the judgment entered on the verdict and is not appealable.

When a case proceeds to trial after summary judgment is denied, the denial merges into the trial judgment and is not separately appealable.

Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. O'Neal · filed 2022-11-30

Since the instant case proceeded to trial following denial of summary judgment, we do not examine the summary judgment order separately; we look only to the post trial order.

Section 2-1005(c) permits an opposing party to file a counteraffidavit before or at the summary judgment hearing.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gold · filed 2020-06-02(c)

We agree with defendant that an affidavit may be timely filed at the time of the hearing. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018) (“[t]he opposite party may prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion file counteraffidavits”).

Section 2-1005(c) allows the opposing party to file counteraffidavits before or at the summary judgment hearing.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gold · filed 2019-09-23(c)

We agree with defendant that an affidavit may be timely filed at the time of the hearing. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018) (“[t]he opposite party may prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion file counteraffidavits”).

Section 2-1005(c) gives the nonmovant an opportunity to show a factual basis for the claim or a genuine issue of material fact; an untimely dispositive ruling does not require reversal when it causes no prejudice.

Okic v. Fullerton Surgery Center, Ltd. · filed 2019-08-26(c)

A dispositive motion filed a week before trial is plainly untimely. ... The motions were improper and untimely dispositive motions. On the record presented, however, that error does not require reversal because it resulted in no prejudice.

Section 2-1005 permits a summary-judgment motion before an answer is filed and allows the motion to raise an affirmative matter omitted from the answer.

Garlick v. Naperville Township · filed 2017-09-15(a), (b)

A party may file a summary-judgment motion at any time, even before filing an answer, and an affirmative matter may be raised in the motion even though it was not raised in an answer.

Section 2-1005 permits a party to move for summary judgment before filing an answer and to raise affirmative matter in the motion even if it was not raised in an answer.

Garlick v. Naperville Township · filed 2017-11-09(a), (b)

A party may file a summary judgment motion at any time, even before filing an answer, and an affirmative matter may be raised in the motion even though it was not raised in an answer.

When both parties move for summary judgment under section 2-1005(c), they concede that no genuine issue of material fact remains and ask the court to decide questions of law.

Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2021-06-24(c)

As discussed above, by raising cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties concede that there is no genuine issue of material fact and agree that only questions of law are involved.

When both parties move for summary judgment, the court must independently determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.

Garner v. Garner · filed 2022-02-25(c)

Despite David’s misstep, we have an independent duty to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists.

When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they acknowledge that no material facts are disputed and leave legal issues for the court to resolve.

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Petrovic · filed 2022-11-15(c)

Where, as here, cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, the parties acknowledge that there are no material questions of fact and that the case disposition turns solely on the resolution of legal issues regarding the construction of the insurance policy.

Section 5/2-1005(c) precludes summary judgment when material facts are disputed, even if both parties move for it.

Para Dynamic Enterprises, LLC v. Lamb-Ferrara · filed 2022-11-22(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file and affidavits, if any, show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... The genuine issue of material fact that exists should have precluded the trial court from granting summary judgment to either party, despite that cross-motions were filed.

Section 2-1005(c) does not require a defendant to support a summary judgment motion with an affidavit when the plaintiff lacks affirmative evidence of an essential element.

Crowder v. McLean County · filed 2025-01-07(c)

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, it is of no consequence whether Dr. Lochard’s motion for summary judgment was supported by affidavit because the crux of Dr. Lochard’s motion for summary judgment was that plaintiff failed to produce affirmative ... evidence that Dr. Lochard’s alleged negligence was arguably a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. See Wiedenbeck, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 292-93. It was therefore not necessary, under these circumstances, for defendants to present an affidavit demonstrating this failure.

Section 2-1005(b) allows a defendant to move for summary judgment at any time; time remaining for discovery or before trial does not prevent judgment when the plaintiff lacks necessary expert evidence after reasonable deadlines.

Smith v. Bhattacharya · filed 2014-07-02(b)

The Code of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to file a motion for summary judgment “at any time” (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(b) (West 2008)). ... We agree with the James court that, if the discovery rules are to have any force or effect, the time left before trial or for completing discovery must be viewed as irrelevant here.

Section 2-1005(c) gives the nonmovant an opportunity to show a factual basis for the claim or a genuine issue of material fact; an untimely dispositive motion generally warrants reversal unless it causes no prejudice.

Okic v. Fullerton Surgery Center, Ltd. · filed 2019-06-10(c)

A dispositive motion filed a week before trial is plainly untimely. ... It is generally reversible error when a trial court grants an untimely motion for summary judgment.

Section 2-1005(c) does not require an affidavit or a statement of facts with a summary judgment motion.

Craig v. Alaeddin · filed 2020-04-30(c)

Neither section 2-1005(c) nor Rule 191(a) require the submission of an affidavit or a statement of facts with a summary judgment motion.

Section 2-1005(b) permits a defendant to move for summary judgment without supporting affidavits; their absence alone does not defeat the motion.

Macias v. Haralson · filed 2025-12-31(b)

To the contrary, “a defendant may move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his or her favor for all or any part of the relief sought.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(b) (West 2024). The absence of affidavits from defendants’ summary judgment motion is not a sufficient basis, by itself, to defeat that motion.

Section 2-1005 permits summary judgment to resolve a question of law about contractual duties when no further evidence is needed.

Chicago Ambulatory Surgery Associates, LLC v. Restore Construction, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14

No further evidence or weighing of evidence was needed to determine whether Onyx had a legal duty to perform the acts on which Restore Construction’s contribution claim was based. The question was a proper subject for a summary judgment motion as it raised a question of law that the court is charged with deciding.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment on a statutory construction question because it presents a question of law.

Mora v. J&M Plating, Inc. · filed 2022-11-30(c)

The issue in this case involves a statutory construction question, which constitutes a question of law and is thus appropriate for summary judgment.

Section 2-1005 makes findings in an order granting summary determination of an issue established at trial.

Schultz v. Sinav Ltd. · filed 2024-04-05

However, the trial court here prevented plaintiffs from litigating the possibility of rescissory damages by granting the IREH Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2022) (providing that findings in an order granting summary determination of an issue “shall be deemed established” at trial). As such, our standard of review is de novo.

Section 2-1005(c) permits summary judgment when the evidence, including a supported adverse inference from a party’s Fifth Amendment invocation, leaves no genuine issue of material fact.

Doe v. Fritch · filed 2024-05-07(c)

In this instance, the evidence presented by plaintiff and the adverse inference that may be drawn by defendant’s assertion of his fifth amendment privilege support both the court’s (1) finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the identity of the person who disseminated the video and (2) grant of partial summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor.

At summary judgment, a court may not assess the credibility of competing affidavits.

Moore v. Pendavinji · filed 2024-09-30

We nonetheless note in passing that, at the summary judgment stage, it is not appropriate for the trial court to address the credibility ... of competing affidavits. ... Thus, although it does not affect our outcome here, we conclude that the trial court erred in considering the credibility of the affiants.

A section 2-1005 summary judgment motion in a small claims case requires prior leave of court under Supreme Court Rule 287(b).

Carter v. ARM Professional Services, Inc. · filed 2025-09-26

Motions for summary judgment are governed by section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2022)) and thus do not fall within the exception specified in the rule. ... Consequently, as motions for summary judgment are not included in the specified list, prior leave of court must be obtained before filing such motions.

Section 2-1005(f) permits contempt for an affidavit submitted in bad faith or for delay and allows recovery of reasonable attorney fees incurred to counter it.

Cori v. Schlafly · filed 2025-12-02(f)

Section 2-1005(f) allows for recovery of attorney fees and expenses incurred in countering an affidavit made in bad faith or for purposes of delay. ... We further find that the court did not abuse its discretion in judging John in contempt under section 2-1005(f) of the Code. ... After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that Cori was caused to incur attorney fees to counter the false affidavit and to prosecute her statutory contempt petition.