Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Settlement Agreements

Beware of opt-out provisions in tort settlement agreements By Stephen Sotelo Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2013 This article demystifies the opt-out provisions of the newly created Section 2-2301 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and warns practitioners what to look for when handling tort settlement agreements in the future.
Confidential settlements vs. non-settling defendants’ right to know By John J. Kohnke Civil Practice and Procedure, November 2012 A look into the current approach taken by litigants and various Illinois courts in balancing the confidentiality clauses of settlement agreements and the remaining defendants' desire to obtain information regarding possible setoffs that they may be entitled to prior to trial or a preliminary pre-trial conference.
Case dismissed when plaintiff fails to sign settlement agreement By Michael R. Lied Labor and Employment Law, October 2011 In this case, the parties intended to enter into a settlement agreement and did so at the conclusion of an April 25, 2009 conference. In fact, the plaintiff affirmed her understanding of the settlement terms and indicated her acceptance of those terms on the record.
Parley—Settlement or something else? By Ambrose V. McCall Labor and Employment Law, October 2010 When negotiating a settlement, what terms bind the parties, and what later interpretations produce non-binding “guidelines,” or something even less forceful?
Enforcing settlement agreements after a case has been dismissed “with prejudice”: Does the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement? By Laura L. Milnichuk Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2009 In Director of Insurance v. A & A Midwest ReBuilders, Inc., et al. the Second District Appellate Court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in an action that had been dismissed “with prejudice.”
Ready, the Plaintiff’s perspective By Katharine Byrne Bench and Bar, February 2009 The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc. makes it possible for Illinois plaintiffs to enter into good-faith settlements with defendants without jeopardizing their case against a defendant that remains at trial or verdict.
Ready, the trial court’s perspective By Hon. William D. Maddux Bench and Bar, February 2009 Recently, in Ready v. United /Goedecke Services, Inc., 2008 Ill. LEXIS 1439 (Ill. Nov. 25, 2008), the Illinois Supreme Court held that settling defendants should not be among the parties listed on jury verdict forms when those juries are asked to apportion fault.
Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc.: A defense perspective By Eugene A. Schoon and James R.M. Hemmings Bench and Bar, February 2009 In Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court determined that a jury may not allocate fault to defendants who have settled prior to trial under the comparative fault provisions of 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.
Enforcing settlement agreements in federal court: A cautionary note and advice By William L. Niro Federal Civil Practice, September 2008 More often than not, litigation ends with a settlement agreement between the adverse parties.