Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Cook Associates v. Lexington United Corp.

Illinois Supreme Court
429 N.E.2d 847 (1981)


Facts

Cook Associates (Cook) (plaintiff), an Illinois employment agency, entered into a contract with Lexington United Corp. (Lexington) (defendant), a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is St. Louis, Missouri. The contract required Lexington to pay Cook a fee if Lexington filled its sales management position with an applicant referred to Lexington by Cook. Joseph Runza, an executive at Lexington, met with Gregg Hoegemeir, one of the prospective employees whose name and resume was sent to Lexington by Edith McIntosh, a Cook employee, in Chicago and offered Hoegemeir the field sales manager position. Hoegemeir rejected the offer. Subsequently, McIntosh’s employment with Cook terminated, and she opened her own employment agency. Soon thereafter, Runza asked for McIntosh’s help in finding a sales manager for Lexington. McIntosh provided Hoegemeir’s information. Runza offered Hoegemeir the national sales manager position and Hoegemeir accepted. Cook demanded its fee. Lexington refused to pay the commission, and Cook sued Lexington for breach of contract in an Illinois state court. Lexington moved to set aside the service of process upon its president at a trade show in Chicago on the grounds that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because the action did not arise from the transaction of any business by Lexington in Illinois, as required by Illinois’ long-arm statute. The trial court denied Lexington’s motion and entered judgment in favor of Cook. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Lexington. Cook appealed on the grounds that the Illinois long-arm statute granted the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over Lexington because Lexington had done business in Illinois, and under the due process standard of minimum contacts.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.