# Jodelis v. Harris

> Illinois Supreme Court · December 21, 1987 · 118 Ill. 2d 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9716533

## Case

- **Full name:** CASIMIR JODELIS, A/K/A Kazys Jodelis, A/K/A Casimir Juodelis, v. ROBERT HARRIS, Appellant (West Lawn Memorial Amvets’ Post 192, Appellee)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 21, 1987
- **Citations:** 118 Ill. 2d 482; 115 Ill. Dec. 369; 517 N.E.2d 1055; 1987 Ill. LEXIS 259
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Simon
- **Judges:** Ward, Simon
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9716533

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the liability created by the Illinois Dramshop Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 43, ¶ 135) was "`exclusive, sui generis nontort liability'" that did not satisfy the requirement of the Illinois Contribution Act (quoting Hopkins v. Powers, 113 Ill.2d 206, 211, 100 Ill.De…
- holding that the liability created by the Illinois Dramshop Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 43, ¶ 135) was “ ‘exclusive, sui generis nontort liability’ ” that did not satisfy the requirement of the Illinois Contribution Act (quoting Hopkins v. Powers, 113 Ill. 2d 206, 211 (1986))
- holding that the liability created by the Illinois Dramshop Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 43, ¶ 135

## Opinion text

JUSTICE SIMON, specially concurring:
I continue to believe that the decision in Hopkins v. Powers (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 206 , that dramshops are not “liable in tort” under the Contribution Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 302(a)), and therefore not subject to an action for contribution is incorrect. (See Hopkins, 113 Ill. 2d at 212-19 (Goldenhersh and Simon, JJ., dissenting).) The result of the application of such a decision is even more egregious here than it was in Hopkins because in this case it is not the intoxicated person who is attempting to get contribution from the dramshop, but rather, the person seeking contribution is one who has been sued by the intoxicated person. Unfortunately, the holding in Hopkins controls the outcome in this case, and I reluctantly concur in the decision of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9716533. Public record. Not legal advice.