Member Groups

Civil Practice and ProcedureThe newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Civil Practice & Procedure

Browse articles by year: 2014 (23) 2013 (34) 2012 (39) 2011 (22) 2010 (27) 2009 (29) 2008 (33) 2007 (39) 2006 (31) 2005 (22) 2004 (19) 2003 (14) 2002 (14) 2001 (17) 2000 (14) 1999 (18)

Newsletter articles from 2005

“Aggravation of a preexisting condition” as a separate element of compensable damages By James F. McCluskey February 2005 The Illinois appellate courts have recently shown some disagreement on the question of whether "aggravation of a preexisting condition" is a separate compensable element of damages in a personal injury action.
Can a plaintiff climb out of the pothole issue? By Michael J. Marovich February 2005 Many personal injury cases involve situations in which a defendant claims that they lost control of their motor vehicle due to the fact that they struck a pothole in the street.
Casenotes by members of the Northern Illinois University Law Review By David Neuman June 2005 The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided an insurance coverage case that will affect the way insurance companies write policies and handle their responsibilities to insureds.
Casenotes by members of the Northern Illinois University Law Review By D.J. Evans February 2005 You may know the feeling; if you do, you don't like it. You may have given advice which at the time seemed reasonable, but later proves problematic.
Clients with no health insurance: A new way to help them get their medical bills paid By Michael J. Marovich November 2005 It is not uncommon, as a practicing Plaintiff’s personal injury attorney, to get a new client with catastrophic injuries and humongous medical bills.
Confidentiality clauses may cause tax liability for plaintiffs in personal injury actions By Michael J. Marovich November 2005 After litigating a case for years, a just and fair settlement is reached between the parties.
Evidence deposition testimony complies with Supreme Court Rule 213’s duty to supplement By Michael J. Marovich September 2005 With the adoption of Supreme Court Rule 213 regarding the duty to disclose opinion witnesses and their opinions, every decision is important for the litigating attorney.
A few tips on litigating non-competition agreements: An employee’s perspective By Patrick M. Kinnally December 2005 Some pointers that may help when representing employees in litigation involving non competition contracts.
Fourth Appellate District rules that workers’ compensation lien is waived if comp settlement contract does not preserve comp lien By Michael J. Marovich December 2005 Perhaps one of the most confusing and frustrating aspects of any personal injury attorney’s practice is dealing with liens on any settlement or verdict proceeds.
Insurance companies beware: Documents normally privileged may be discoverable By D.J. Evans November 2005 The Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Western States Insurance Co. v. O’Hara places greater responsibility on insurance companies to deal fully and fairly with their insureds and third parties in response to discovery requests.
ISBA newsletter authors can receive CLE program discounts November 2005 The ISBA announces its new newsletter article authors CLE discount program.
Judicial notice revisited By Patrick M. Kinnally September 2005 Recently, I was involved in a trial where my opponent was attempting to have the court take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance.
The latest offer-of-judgment proposal for Illinois should be rejected By Jack Joseph April 2005 Yet another attempt to persuade Illinois to adopt an offer-of-judgment rule is on the table.
Opinion witness disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 213 By Russell W. Hartigan April 2005 In 2002, Rule 213(f) underwent a dramatic change in the manner in which trial witnesses are disclosed. Prior to the amendment, parties were required merely to provide minimal information upon request of opposing counsel. Furthermore, Rule 213(f) typically applied to lay witnesses.
Pre-trial interest vs. pre-trial inflation By Phillip Rushing and Kennith Blan June 2005 Absent statutory authority, pre-judgment interest is not recoverable in tort actions in Illinois. Cress v. Recreation Services, Inc., 341 Ill.App.3d 149, 795 N.E.2d 817 (2nd Dist. 2003), appeal denied, 206 Ill.2d 615.
Recent changes in Civil Jury Instructions in the IPI-Civil, 2005 Edition By Richard L. Turner April 2005 Recent changes in the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions for civil cases reflect an attempt on the part of the Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions in Civil Cases to fine-tune those instructions which may have led to potential juror confusion.
Rescission of franchise agreements pursuant to Franchise Disclosure Act ruled arbitrable By David Neuman February 2005 The Illinois Supreme Court recently rendered a decision in Jensen v. Quik International, 213 Ill. 2d 119 (2004).
Rescission/Restitution: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it By John B. Kincaid November 2005 The subject of this article involves the doctrine of contract rescission and the court’s application of restitution following the order of rescission.
Sending answers to Rule 213 interrogatories to doctor before his evidence deposition violates Petrillo By Michael J. Marovich June 2005 Often in a personal injury case it becomes necessary for counsel to take the deposition of one of plaintiff's treating physicians.
State of mind By John M. Stalmack September 2005 A perplexing evidentiary concept is that of a person's state of mind. Hearsay evidence is testimony given in court, either orally or in writing, of a statement made out of court offered to show the truth of the matter asserted in that statement.
Want to be like Mike? Not lately By D.J. Evans September 2005 It has been said that your past always comes back. For Michael Jordan, nothing could be more devastatingly true.
Willis v. Kiferbaum Construction: A Kotecki waiver by a subcontractor does not climb the chain to benefit a contractor higher up unless expressly provided for by contract By Richard L. Turner December 2005 It is now clear under the recent decision in Willis v. Kiferbaum Construction Corp., that such a Kotecki waiver only occurs where it is expressly contracted for between the employer/subcontractor and the party further up the contractual chain seeking to assert that waiver.