The Bar News

Bar News Sections

Supreme Court Quick Takes

  • November 5, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Wednesday's Illinois Supreme Court Criminal opinions

    In re M.A.

    By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

    When she was 13 years old, M.A. used a knife to cut her 14-year-old brother after a physical altercation between them.  As a result, she was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated domestic battery, aggravated battery, and domestic battery.  On appeal, she challenged the registration provisions of the Violent Offender Act on various constitutional grounds.

    Asserting an equal protection violation, M.A. argued that juvenile violent offenders were similarly situated to juvenile sex offenders.  The Court rejected that assertion, citing to the legislative history of both the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and the Violent Offender Act (VOA).

  • October 22, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick take on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinion in "junk fax" case

    Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc.

    By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan

    In this “junk fax” class action case, the court held that a motion for class certification filed contemporaneously with the complaint was sufficient to bar a claim of mootness by defendant, which tendered the full amount recoverable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act after the complaint, and class certification motion, were filed. In partially reversing the appellate court and in affirming the circuit court, the supreme court centered its analysis on its opinion in Barber v. American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill.2d 450 (2011).

    In Barber, plaintiff’s class action was properly dismissed because there was no motion for class certification pending when the defendant refunded the $40 baggage fee which was at issue, thereby mooting the class plaintiff’s claim. An underpinning of the reasoning in Barber was that in the absence of a motion for certification, the interests of the other class members were not then before the court.  

    Here, defendant argued, in part, that the motion for class certification was a “shell” motion that lacked content. The supreme court disagreed, saying that the motion contained a general outline of the action, and effectively communicated the fundamental nature of the putative class action.

  • October 8, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case Nelson v. Artley and the criminal case People v. Stapinski.

    CIVIL

    Nelson v. Artley

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

    The liability of a rental car company who obtains a certificate of self-insurance from the Secretary of State is limited to the same minimum coverage provisions applicable to rental car companies who meet their financial responsibility obligations through purchasing an insurance policy. 

    Mr. Nelson was injured by an Enterprise rental car driven by Mr. Artley, who was uninsured. Nelson sued Artley, resulting in a default judgment of $600,000.  Nelson brought a supplementary action against Enterprise.

    Enterprise asserted various affirmative defenses, the most pertinent dealing with its financial exposure.  Enterprise argued that because it was self-insured, its total financial responsibility per occurrence was $100,000 (the statutory minimum coverage requirements for insurance).  Because $75,000 already had been paid or allotted to other claims arising out of the same incident, the circuit court issued a turnover order of $25,000 to Nelson. 

  • September 24, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court Criminal opinions

    A review of Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases In re Q.P., People v. Fiveash and People v. Goossens.

    CRIMINAL

    In re Q.P.

    By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

    An officer responded to a call of a vehicle burglary in progress. Upon arriving, he located the minor, Q.P., who matched the description of the burglar. The officer handcuffed the minor and put him in the back of the squad car. The minor gave a false name and date of birth. Upon discovery that the information was false, the minor admitted to the officer that he was attempting to prevent the police from discovering that he had an outstanding warrant.

    The minor was charged with, and convicted of, obstructing justice based upon giving false information to the police with the intent to prevent his apprehension. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the meaning of “apprehension.” The minor argued that he was already apprehended because he was in police custody at the time he provided the false information. The State argued that apprehension is specific to each criminal charge and thus, while the minor had been apprehended for the suspected vehicle burglary, he had not yet been apprehended on the outstanding warrant.

  • September 24, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court Civil opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Stevens v. McGuireWoods, LLP,  Lake Environmental Inc. v. Arnold, Seymour v. Collins, The Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan and O’Toole  v. The Chicago Zoological Society.

    CIVIL

    Stevens v. McGuireWoods L.L.P.

    By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan

    The court’s unanimous opinion in Stevens v. McGuireWoods, LLP, is grounded on the established points that legal malpractice plaintiffs must be able to establish actual monetary loss as damages, that such a plaintiff cannot be in a better position by bringing suit against the attorney than if the underlying action had been prosecuted successfully, and that damages obtainable in a corporate derivative action belong to the corporation, and not to plaintiff shareholders. 

    The plaintiffs here are former minority shareholders in an LLC.  They had retained the defendant law firm to bring claims against managers of the LLC as well as its majority shareholder.  Those claims were brought in both individual and derivative capacities.  Substituted counsel brought additional claims against the LLC’s corporate counsel.  Those claims were dismissed for various reasons, including standing and statutes of limitations and repose.  The plaintiff shareholders settled the underlying case, and relinquished all ownership interest in the LLC.

  • June 18, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases In re Marrige of Mueller and Hadley v. Subscriber Doe and the criminal case People v. Downs.

    CIVIL

    In re Marriage of Mueller

    By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

     

  • May 21, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Marks v. Vanderventer, McVey v. M.L.K. Enterprises, LLC, Turcios v. The DeBruler Company and Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. Walters and the criminal cases People v. Allen, People v. Gaytan and People v. Kuehner.

    CIVIL

    Marks v. Vanderventer

    By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth, LLC

    Here the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s rulings that held unconstitutional a $10 surcharge collected by a county recorder of deeds as set forth in the original and amended versions of state legislation primarily aimed at funding the Rental Housing Support Program, which the General Assembly created to help local governments address the shortage in the state of affordable, decent rental housing. The circuit court certified a class of plaintiffs required to pay the fee for recording real estate-related documents and a class of defendants consisting of the county recorders of deeds throughout the state.

  • April 16, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and Illinois State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and the criminal case People v. Barner. 

    CIVIL

    Leetaru v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

    Issues of sovereign immunity divided the Court in this suit by a doctoral student against the University of Illinois and one of its associate vice chancellors (Guenther). Leetaru filed a circuit court action to enjoin further action in connection with an investigation defendants were pursuing against him regarding allegations that he engaged in academic misconduct. Leetaru contended that defendants violated University rules and regulations in conducting the investigation, exceeded their authority, and deprived him of due process.

    The circuit court dismissed the action, finding that the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction. After the appellate court affirmed, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

  • March 19, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Brunton v. Kruger, Cowper v. Nyberg, Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Ins. Co. and Harris v. One Hope United, Inc and provide short summaries for In People ex rel. Madigan v. J. T. Einoder, Inc., McCormick v. Robertson and In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D.

    CIVIL

    Brunton v. Kruger

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

  • February 20, 2015 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Friday's Illinois Supreme Court criminal opinions

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Almond, People v. Mosley, People v. Boyce and In re the Interest of Jordan G.

    People v. Almond

    By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

    Many people mocked Barney Fife for carrying a single bullet in his shirt pocket, but today's decision in People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, shows that to have been a wise policy.

    Based on an anonymous tip that drugs were being dealt out of a store, police officers approached Almond (who had prior felony convictions), asked him what he was doing there and whether  he was in possession of any narcotics or weapons. The officer testified that the defendant said “I just got  to let you know I got a gun on me.” The defendant was frisked, and the gun was recovered. The defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress  evidence. At a hearing on the motion, Almond denied that he was even asked whether he had contraband and denied he ever told officers that he possessed a firearm, claiming that he would not tell a police officer that  information  because  he knew “it’s wrong to have a gun.” The motion was denied. Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted on all counts.

Pages