Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases State of Illinois v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, Vaughn v. City of Carbondale and Jones v. Municipal Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund and the criminal cases People v. Timmsen and People v. Burns.

CIVIL

State of Illinois v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

In one of two March 24, 2016, decisions that directly affect thousands of individuals working for the State of Illinois and indirectly affect all Illinois taxpayers, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated an arbitration ruling requiring the state to pay a 2% wage increase to state employees under a collective bargaining agreement between the state and the American Federation  of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (“AFSCME”).  The court ruled that the arbitration award, which required immediate payment of the wage increase, regardless of the legislative appropriation of funding for the pay raise, violates  Illinois public policy as determined by the General Assembly in section 21 of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/21 (West 2014).   

People v. Ligon

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

Dennis Ligon was armed with a BB gun when he approached a woman exiting her vehicle and took it from her.  He was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm (AVH/DW), a Class X felony.  He was sentenced to natural life under the Habitual Criminal Act.

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.”

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Bowman v. Ottney and Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the criminal cases People v. Hughes, People v. Burns and In re Michael D.

Note: The authors of the summaries and the staff of Illinois Lawyer Now wish to honor the memory of Hon. Jean Prendergast Rooney, who passed away on December 8, 2015, and was a valuable original member of this team before becoming Circuit Judge. She is greatly missed.

CIVIL

Bowman v. Ottney

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

When a judge has made a ruling on a substantial issue in a case, followed by a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1009, a party may not move for substitution of judge when the subsequently refiled case is assigned to the judge who presided in the first case. In Bowman v. Ottney, the judge ruled on substantial issues, such as the scope of discovery. Thereafter, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint and timely refiled her action. The refiled case was assigned to the original judge, and plaintiff immediately moved for substitution of judge pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1001. Defendant objected, asserting that plaintiff had “tested the waters” during the first case. The circuit court denied the substitution of judge but certified the issue under SCR 308.