When and how may an Illinois claim be refiled after a qualifying dismissal?

Read the actual judgment or dismissal. The operative text covers the stated reversal, arrest-of-judgment, voluntary dismissal, want-of-prosecution and federal jurisdiction or venue dispositions.

Preserve the original limitation boundary and the complete prior filing and dismissal history for the same claim.

Review earlier merits judgments and claim-splitting. A timely proposed date does not establish a right to bring the action again.

1. Read the actual judgment or dismissal. The operative text covers the stated reversal, arrest-of-judgment, voluntary dismissal, want-of-prosecution and federal jurisdiction or venue dispositions.
2. Preserve the original limitation boundary and the complete prior filing and dismissal history for the same claim.
3. Review earlier merits judgments and claim-splitting. A timely proposed date does not establish a right to bring the action again.
4. Compare one year after the qualifying disposition with the remaining limitation period and use the greater allowed time. First Midwest Bank v. Cobo applies the single-refiling rule using the transactional test, not merely complaint titles. Hudson shows that a prior merits judgment on part of an action can bar a refiled claim despite a later voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
5. For statutory refiling, commence a new lawsuit with its new case number, filing fee and summons. Preserve acceptance and service evidence. Separately establish any actual reinstatement relief under the governing court procedure.

No computed date is published. Establish the applicable statutory periods and then check their governing counting and closed-day provisions separately.

Fictitious comparison. Two qualifying dismissals occur on the same day. One claim’s original limitation period ends later than the one-year anniversary. The other has less time remaining. The greater-of comparison produces different candidate boundaries, subject to the same separate refiling and preclusion checks.

Disposition, remaining time, prior refiling, preclusion and new-action requirements are cumulative procedural questions. One dismissal date cannot establish them.

Use operative text rather than the invalid amendment

Eighner footnote 1 confirms that P.A. 89-7 was invalidated and the preceding Section 13-217 version remains operative. Its text includes voluntary dismissal and want of prosecution.

Only one refiling of the same claim

Cobo paragraphs 17–20 apply the single-refiling rule and examine whether the complaints arise from the same operative facts. A new title does not itself create a new claim.

Without prejudice does not erase prior merits judgments

Hudson’s majority applies claim preclusion after a merits dismissal of one count and voluntary dismissal of another. Review all prior judgments and applicable preclusion exceptions.

Eighner’s exceptional reinstatement is not the refiling rule

Eighner paragraphs 32–35 granted supervisory reinstatement because of its unusual leave-to-reinstate order. The court separately affirmed the new-action requirement. Do not treat the exceptional relief as automatic reinstatement by notice.

• This source guide computes no date and does not determine whether the required facts are established.
• Preserve the operative edition, actual documents and relevant court orders. Historical applicability requires its own review.

• Read the actual judgment or dismissal. The operative text covers the stated reversal, arrest-of-judgment, voluntary dismissal, want-of-prosecution and federal jurisdiction or venue dispositions.
• Preserve the original limitation boundary and the complete prior filing and dismissal history for the same claim.
• Review earlier merits judgments and claim-splitting. A timely proposed date does not establish a right to bring the action again.
• Eighner footnote 1 confirms that P.A. 89-7 was invalidated and the preceding Section 13-217 version remains operative. Its text includes voluntary dismissal and want of prosecution.
• Cobo paragraphs 17–20 apply the single-refiling rule and examine whether the complaints arise from the same operative facts. A new title does not itself create a new claim.
• Hudson’s majority applies claim preclusion after a merits dismissal of one count and voluntary dismissal of another. Review all prior judgments and applicable preclusion exceptions.
• Eighner paragraphs 32–35 granted supervisory reinstatement because of its unusual leave-to-reinstate order. The court separately affirmed the new-action requirement. Do not treat the exceptional relief as automatic reinstatement by notice.
• For statutory refiling, commence a new lawsuit with its new case number, filing fee and summons. Preserve acceptance and service evidence. Separately establish any actual reinstatement relief under the governing court procedure. File with the proper clerk in the required format. Rule 9 ordinarily requires civil electronic filing, subject to its exceptions and exemptions. Rule 9(f) ordinarily requires submission before midnight in the court time zone unless a statute, rule or actual order specifies a different time. A submission on a closed clerk day ordinarily receives the next open-day stamp. Preserve the actual electronic file mark, receipt and any filing-relief order. Filing and service are distinct acts.