# Kahle v. John Deere Co.

> Illinois Supreme Court · November 30, 1984 · 104 Ill. 2d 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9519392

## Case

- **Full name:** GARY KAHLE, Appellee, v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 30, 1984
- **Citations:** 104 Ill. 2d 302; 84 Ill. Dec. 650; 472 N.E.2d 787; 1984 Ill. LEXIS 382
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ryan
- **Judges:** Simon, Ryan, Moran
- **Cited by:** 115 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9519392

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal pursuant to section 2-1009 is “final and appealable by the defendants.”
- observing that a plaintiff cannot appeal a voluntary dismissal order they requested
- noting the new case filed under section 13-217 is a separate cause of action

## Opinion text

CHIEF JUSTICE RYAN, concurring:
In view of the prior holdings of this court, I concur in the holding of this case. However, the facts involved demonstrate a grave abuse of the extension of the statute of limitations provided in section 13 — 217 of the Code of CivH Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 13—217), which permits the commencement of a new action within one year after a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in this case was injured more than 91/2 years ago. Since that time the attorneys have been jockeying for position, each seeking a favorable forum. In plaintiff’s brief, an emotional argument is made that the defendants “now seek to bar plaintiff, a paraplegic, from seeking any relief whatsoever.” In my opinion, the dispatch with which plaintiff’s claim has been handled by his counsel in this case does not show much concern for his plight.
The purpose of the statute authorizing the refiling within one year after the voluntary dismissal of the case is to protect the plaintiff from his loss of the right to relief on the merits because of some procedural defect. (Kutnick v. Grant (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 37 ; Brown v. Burdick (1974), 16 Ill. App. 3d 1071 .) Its provisions should not be abused by using the statute as a means of forum shopping.
I suggest that the General Assembly consider limiting the right to refile after a voluntary dismissal under section 13 — 217 to prevent the abuse apparent in this case. Also, I invite my colleagues to consider amending our Rule 273 (87 Ill. 2d R. 273) for the same purpose.
JUSTICE MORAN joins in this concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9519392. Public record. Not legal advice.