Supreme Court Quick Takes

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review today's opinions in the civil case Carr v. Gateway, Inc. and criminal cases People v. Skryd, People v. Beauchamp and People v. Manning.

CIVIL

Cookson v. Price

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in State Building Venture v. O'Donnell, In re the commitment of Hernandez, People v. Zimmerman, People v. Amigon, People v. Alexander, People v. Jocko and People v. Carrera.

CIVIL

Vancura v. Katris

By Jean M. Prendergast, Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C Today, in Vancura v. Katris, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reversed a trial court’s ruling that Kinko’s, Inc. (“Kinko’s”) bore liability for an employee’s decision to notarize plaintiff’s signature, which caused the loss of plaintiff’s interest in a mortgage note. It was undisputed that plaintiff never signed the document at issue. Plaintiff posited three theories: (1) violation of Section 7-102 of the Illinois Notary Public Act (“Act”) (5 ILCS 312/7-102 (West 1996)); (2) negligent training; and (3) negligent supervision. Interestingly, the Court disagreed with the appellate court’s determination that Kinko’s forfeited review of the common law claims by failing to provide adequate legal support. Instead, while the Court found certain of Kinko’s cited cases unpersuasive, it nevertheless found the citations and argument sufficient to satisfy Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). In contrast, the Court ruled that plaintiff violated Rule 341(h)(7), and thus, forfeited his right to review of the appellate court’s judgment against him on his claim for violation of the Act. The Court next examined the common law claims and held that Section 7-102 of the Act was intended to modify the common law. Thus, the common law duty of employers of notaries extends only as far as the Act; the employer has a duty not to consent to the official misconduct of its employees. Plaintiff never argued that Kinko’s had any knowledge of its employee’s misconduct.