If it’s been a few years since a personal jurisdiction issue has come across your desk, you may want to take note of a recent decision by the first district involving General Electric Co. (GE). The case of Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc. powerfully illustrates how Illinois courts are continuing a clear legal trend in limiting the availability of general or “all-purpose” personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who are sued in Illinois courts. In Eric Muñoz’s April Illinois Bar Journal article, “GE May Bring Good Things to Life, but It Does Not Bring Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, ” Muñoz, a partner at Scandaglia Ryan, shows, in light of Campbell, how non-Illinois-based companies, with significant and longstanding business and financial contacts in Illinois, like GE, may be unamenable to general jurisdiction in the state. Counsel on both sides of potential litigation would be well-served to appreciate the implications of this important legal trend in personal jurisdiction caselaw and to be prepared to aggressively incorporate these developments into their litigation and defense practices.

Michele Stuart is back again with even more tips and advice for unearthing the details and facts you need for your case! Get the insider knowledge you need to successfully conduct investigations in your cases with this full-day seminar on May 22 in Chicago. Learn how to use Facebook to ascertain information, Instagram to geo-locate individuals, and Twitter to follow hashtag conversations. Discover which open source options can give you the results you need when gathering information and how to use them.

The Illinois Supreme Court issued three opinions on Thursday, April 18. The ISBA's panel of leading appellate and civil attorneys reviewed the opinions and provided summaries. In People v. Buffer, the court upheld the appellate court’s decision to vacate a defendant’s 50-year prison sentence imposed for a crime he committed when he was 16 years old and remanded the case for resentencing. In People v. Kimble, the court denied a man’s motion to bar his reprosecution on double jeopardy grounds where the trial judge declared a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. Fillmore v. Taylor addresses whether an inmate can seek relief against the Department of Corrections pursuant to mandamus or a common-law writ of certiorari based on allegations that the Department failed to follow relevant regulations.

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am the managing partner of an eight-attorney firm in Dayton, Ohio. We have two equity partners (both in our early 50s), two non-equity partners, and four associates. Our practice is a very niche-specific practice and there are only three or four other practices in the state that do the work that we do. There is another firm in Cleveland, Ohio, that has approached us regarding a possible merger or acquisition. The firm does similar work that our firm does. However, this firm also handles some areas we would like to get into that fall within our niche area. There are two founding partners in the firm (one in his late 60s and the other in her early 70s), one associate attorney, and four staff members. The two partners are planning on moving toward retirement and are looking for a succession strategy. They have not shared with us their timeline or any financial information. We have had one face-to-face meeting and several phone calls. We would appreciate your take on this, next steps, and whether we should pursue this matter further.