Two Great ISBA Member Benefits Sponsored by
ISBA Mutual Lawyers Malpractice Insurance
view counter
A Value of $1,344, Included with Membership
Free CLE
view counter
Fastcase
view counter

Supreme Court quick takes

Quick Take on Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Issued Thursday, April 5

Posted on April 5, 2018 by Sara Anderson

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down one opinion today in People v. Pepitone. At issue in this case was whether Section 11-9.4-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012, which prohibits sexual predators or child sex offenders to knowingly be present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park, is facially violative of substantive due process. Jay Wiegman of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the court's ruling.

People v. Pepitone

Section 11-9.4-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012 prohibits “sexual predators” and “child sex offenders” from being knowingly present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park. 720 ILCS 5/11 9.4 1(b) (West 2016). In People v. Pepitone, 2018 IL 122034, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether this statute was facially violative of substantive due process and determined that it was not. 

The defendant in Pepitone, who had been convicted in 1999 of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to a six-year prison term, was arrested in 2013 while walking his dog in a public park in Bolingbrook. A jury found him guilty of being a child sex offender in a public park, and he was sentenced to 24 months’ conditional discharge, 100 hours of public service, and $400 in fines and costs. 

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, March 22

Posted on March 22, 2018 by Sara Anderson

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down four unanimous opinions on Thursday, March 22. The court considered the manner, scope, and extent of voir dire in People v. Encalado, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s proposed voir dire question. Relying on statutory construction principles and legislative intent, the court upheld a first degree murder conviction in People v. Manning. In People ex rel. Berlin v. Bakalis, the court directed the circuit court to vacate the defendant's one-year term of mandatory supervised release and impose the mandatory four-year term required under the Unified Code of Corrections. Lastly, the court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that State Farm's insured could recover underinsured motorist coverage in Thounsavath v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co.


People v. Manning

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

Arthur Manning was charged with first degree murder arising out of the stabbing death of a “highly intoxicated and ultimately an unwelcome visitor at a residence occupied by defendant” and others. At trial, there was evidence of a fight between the decedent and several of the residents including Manning, who had been armed with a knife. The jury was instructed on self defense and second degree murder at Manning’s request.

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Friday, Feb. 16

Posted on February 16, 2018 by Sara Anderson

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down two opinions today, Friday, Feb. 16. The court considered whether the Cook County Circuit Court erroneously entered a finding of a good-faith settlement agreement under the Joint Tortfeasor Act in a personal injury action arising out of a car accident in Antonicelli v. Rodriguez. In People ex rel. Hartrich v. 2010 Harley-Davidson, the court addresses the application of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the civil forfeiture of personal property. Leading appellate attorneys Karen DeGrand and Joanne Driscoll summarize the cases below.

Quick Take on Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Issued Thursday, Feb. 1

Posted on February 1, 2018 by Sara Anderson

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down an opinion today in People v. Chairez. At issue in this case was the constitutionality of a section of the unlawful use of a weapon statute that prohibits an individual from carrying or possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park. Kerry Bryson of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the court's ruling.

People v. Chairez

Over the past several years, constitutional challenges to various provisions of the unlawful use of weapons (UUW) statute have made their way through the courts. Chairez involves another such challenge, specifically with regard to the provision prohibiting an individual from carrying or possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park [720 ILCS 5/24-1 (a)(4), (c)(1.5)].

In 2013, Julio Chairez pled guilty to possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a park in Aurora. Subsequently, Chairez filed a post-conviction petition arguing that the statute violated the second amendment and seeking to vacate his conviction. The circuit court agreed, and the case proceeded directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Jan. 19

Posted on January 22, 2018 by Sara Anderson

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down four opinions on Friday, Jan. 19, including the highly-anticipated Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., in which the court considered who can be held liable for a fraternity pledge's alcohol-related death during an initiation ritual. The court also addressed the deadline to timely file a motion to quash service in a residential mortgage foreclosure action in Bank of New York Mellon v. Laskowski, reversed and remanded the appellate court's decision to overturn a defendant's first degree murder conviction in People v. Carey, and determined whether the one-act, one-crime rule prohibits multiple convictions arising out of the defendant's single act of gun possession in People v. Coats. Leading appellate attorneys review these cases below.

Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc.

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC
 
Here the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the civil liability ramifications of excessive alcohol consumption at a fraternity pledging event. The court addressed whether the national organizations of a fraternity, a local chapter of the fraternity, its officers, pledge board members and active members, along with non-member sorority women, owed a legal duty to a prospective pledge who died from alcohol poisoning during a pledge event. The court ruled that all but the national entities owed a duty on the allegations of the complaint.  

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Friday, Dec. 29

Posted on January 2, 2018 by Sara Anderson

Leading appellate attorneys review Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down on Friday, Dec. 29. The cases are Cohen v. Chicago Park District and Yarbrough v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

Cohen v. Chicago Park District

By Joanne R. Driscoll, Forde Law Offices LLP

For a second time within a month, the Illinois Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the meaning of section 3-107 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-107 (West 2012)), in the context of bicycling accidents along shared-use paths or trails. In Corbett v. The County of Lake, 2012 IL 121536, decided in November, the court construed subsection (b), whereas here the court construed subsection (a). In both cases, the court found section 3-107 inapplicable, although this case drew a dissent, but for a different reason.

Quick Take on Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Issued Tuesday, Dec. 5

Posted on December 7, 2017 by Sara Anderson

Kerry Bryson of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the criminal case People v. Casas.

People v. Casas

In 1996, Fernando Casas, Jr., posted bond in a drug case and was released from custody. He regularly appeared at scheduled court dates until June 1998. His bond was forfeited and a bench warrant was issued.  Casas was ultimately tried in absentia and a 20-year prison sentence was imposed.

In April 2014, a traffic stop revealed Casas’s outstanding warrant. Casas was taken into custody and began serving the 20-year sentence.  Then, in December 2014, Casas was indicted for violating his bail bond. Casas moved to dismiss on the basis that the general three-year statute of limitations had expired in 2001 and the state had not alleged any facts to toll or extend the limitations period. The state then filed an amended information alleging that the bond violation was a continuing offense and the limitations period did not begin to run until Casas’s April 2014 arrest.

The circuit court dismissed, relying on People v. Grogan, 197 Ill. App. 3d 18 (1st Dist. 1990), which held that violation of bail bond is not a continuing offense. The state appealed, and the appellate court agreed with the state's assertion that Grogan was wrongly decided and concluded that it should no longer be followed.

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, Nov. 30

Posted on November 30, 2017 by Sara Anderson

Leading appellate attorneys review Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down on Thursday, Nov. 30. The cases are People v. ColePeople v. RelerfordPeople v. Hunter, People v. Brown, People v. Staake, In re Marriage of GoeselCorbett v. The County of Lake, Citibank, N.A. v. The Illinois Department of Revenue, Lawler v. The University of Chicago Medical Center, Ramsey Herndon LLC v. Whiteside, and In re Benny M.

People v. Cole

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to conflict-free counsel. Representation of multiple defendants by a single attorney does not represent a per se violation of the constitutional guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel. Within a law firm, multiple lawyers may not represent multiple clients if such representation would be a conflict for any lawyer who practiced alone, per Rule 1.10 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010. Such potential conflicts of interest are common for Public Defenders, which were held to not be a firm in People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147 (1979).

Quick Take on Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Issued Wednesday, Nov. 8

Posted on November 8, 2017 by Sara Anderson

Kerry Bryson of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the criminal case In re Jarquan B.

In re Jarquan B

In January 2015, the state filed a delinquency petition alleging that Jarquan B. committed the Class A misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle. The minor pled guilty and was sentenced to court supervision and a 30-day detention term that was stayed. Jarquan B. was advised that if he violated the terms of his supervision, he could be placed on probation or taking into custody on the stayed detention term. Due to subsequent violations, the minor was placed on electronic home monitoring and then ordered to serve time in juvenile detention.

In September 2015, the state filed a petition alleging Jarquan B. had again violated the terms of his supervision on multiple occasions after release from detention. The minor admitted the violations and was resentenced to six months of probation. He was admonished that if he violated probation, he could be sentenced to a term of detention. Almost immediately (i.e., on his way back to his residential placement facility), the minor fled from staff thereby violating his probation. Following his admission to the probation violation, the minor was resentenced to a term in the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in April 2016.

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, Oct. 19

Posted on October 19, 2017 by Sara Anderson

Leading appellate attorneys review the Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down on Thursday, October 19. The cases are People v. Reese, In re Destiny P., and Rozsavolgyi v. The City of Aurora.

People v. Reese

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

In People v. Reese, 2017 IL 120011, the Illinois Supreme Court considered several issues, the most prominent of which was whether the offense of aggravated vehicular hijacking requires proof that the defendant took actual physical possession of a vehicle from the driver. In a 6-1 decision, the court held that the “offense encompasses taking actual possession of a vehicle but may also be committed when a defendant exercises control of the vehicle by use of force or threat of force with the victim still present.”

Pages