Practice News

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews legislation in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers Township Code I (Senate Bill 2287), Township Code II (Senate Bill 2288), Township Code III (Senate Bill 2412), The Biometric Information Privacy Act (Senate Bill 2409) and Citation on behalf of estate (Public Act 99-497). More information on each bill is available below the video.

Township Code I. Senate Bill 2287 (Althoff, R-McHenry) requires that a referendum be submitted to the voters after a petition by at least 5% of the registered voters seeking to discontinue and abolish the township’s organization and to transfer all the rights, powers, and responsibilities of the township organization to the county. Applies to a singular township organization within one county. Requires that the township officers of any township that is discontinued continue as officers of that township until the expiration of the respective terms for which they were elected or appointed. Further provides that a county may retain its form of government after all townships have been dissolved. Referred to the Committee on Assignments.

By Mike O'Connor, ISBA Standing Committee on Delivery of Legal Services

By now, every Illinois attorney whose practice involves even a little bit of family law knows (or should know) that major changes were made to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMMDA), effective January 1, 2016. There have been several excellent articles in ISBA publications summarizing and discussing the revisions, so, without getting into the details, what is important to know is that the changes are significant and involve matters of both procedure and substance. 

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court Civil opinions in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District and Klaine v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services.

Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.

In this divisive case, the Supreme Court departed from stare decisis and “determined that the time has come to abandon the public duty rule and its special duty exception.”

The public duty rule provided that local governmental entities and their employees owe no duty of care to individual members of the general public to provide governmental services, such as police and fire protection.

The Court based its ruling on three considerations: (1) the jurisprudence regarding the public duty rule was “muddled and inconsistent”; (2) application of the public duty rule is incompatible with the legislature's grant of limited immunity in cases of willful and wanton misconduct; and (3) determining public policy is primarily a legislative function and, by enacting statutory immunities, the legislature had rendered the public duty rule obsolete.

The special concurrence by Justice Freeman, joined by Justice Theis, agreed that the public duty rule must be abolished, but offered alternative justifications for the abolition. Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Garman and Justice Karmeier, dissented, criticizing that the majority and concurring opinions were indefensible and that “both make a mockery of stare decisis.”

Filing paper court documents in civil cases will soon be a thing of the past in Illinois.

Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday announced that the electronic filing of documents in civil cases will be required in the Supreme Court and five districts of the Appellate Court effective July 1, 2017, and in all circuit courts effective January 1, 2018.

The announcement marks the latest step in the Court's ongoing effort to utilize technology to make the court system more efficient. The Court's statewide e-filing initiative will provide a streamlined process for filing documents, conserve environmental resources and time, and generate long-term savings.

“When I was sworn in as Chief Justice in October 2013, one of the several goals that I announced was the increased use of technology in our courthouses and courtrooms, both to make the judicial system more efficient and to make the work of the courts more transparent. At that time, the e-filing pilot project had been completed. I am pleased that we have now reached the point where the technology is available to implement e-filing statewide at all levels of our judicial system,” Chief Justice Garman said.

“While full implementation will not be achieved during my term as Chief Justice, we have established a workable timetable, and I look forward to being involved as we address any challenges or concerns that mandatory e-filing may raise.”