Federal courts have jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims in patent infringement casesJanuary 2010Illinois Law Update, Page 16On November 10, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County finding, in a legal malpractice suit, that the contingent fee arrangement between the parties was not void, and that jurisdiction over the malpractice claim rested exclusively with the federal courts.
Defendants may owe a duty of care to a child injured on a treadmillDecember 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 604On September 30, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed and remanded the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a treadmill poses an open and obvious danger to a child.
Power company has a duty to respond to a downed power line with due careNovember 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 552On August 27, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment by the Circuit Court of Cook County in favor of the defendant power company, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff to respond to a downed power line with due care.
The Overlooked Art of Redirect ExaminationBy Jeffrey J. Kroll and Patrick WhiteAugust 2009Article, Page 406Redirect examination is a powerful weapon for litigators, but it can backfire on those who forget its central purpose - to rehabilitate witnesses.
CTA notice requirement eliminatedBy Helen W. GunnarssonJuly 2009LawPulse, Page 330Plaintiff’s lawyers are cheering the removal of a notice requirement they say functioned “as a shield against unsuspecting plaintiffs” with legitimate claims against the CTA.
Evidence is insufficient to prove negligence if the conclusion is merely possibleJune 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 284On April 1, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Will County which granted summary judgment for the defendants after concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed to establish negligence on the part of the defendants.
Victory for defendants in asbestos caseBy Helen W. GunnarssonJune 2009LawPulse, Page 278The Illinois Supreme Court allows defendants in asbestos cases to introduce evidence that someone else's negligence was the sole proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries.
Absolute immunity applies to protect police officers from tort liabilityMay 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 226On February 20, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, thereby affirming the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to a defendant's enforcement of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq (2002)).
Proving Proximate Cause in Malpractice casesBy Terrence J. Lavin and Kristina M. LauMay 2009Article, Page 254Illinois courts are still struggling to determine the plaintiff's proper burden of proving proximate cause in "lost chance" cases.
Measure of damages to pet may include the cost of veterinary care and treatmentMarch 2009Illinois Law Update, Page 122On December 31, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Logan County awarding damages to the plaintiffs for tortious damage to their dog and modifying the damage award to equal the total costs of veterinary care required.
Plaintiffs win big in ReadyBy Helen W. GunnarssonFebruary 2009LawPulse, Page 64 The supreme court holds that good-faith settling tortfeasors can't be included in apportioning fault after verdicts to determine joint and several liability.
Illinois’ New Anti-SLAPP StatuteBy Eric M. Madiar and Terrence J. SheahanDecember 2008Article, Page 620The Act should quell libel suits against those who legitimately petition government for redress. But does it also shield those who intentionally defame others?