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 takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court criminal opinions

Posted on December 1, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Hammond, People v. Gutman, People v. Villa, People v. Snyder and People v. Johnson. Click here to read about Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank, In re Haley D., Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills and Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo.

People v. Hammond

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

 Hammondinvolves consolidated cases dealing with the power and authority of probation officers.  Two particular issues were considered: (1) whether a probation officer has the authority to file a petition charging a violation of probation, and (2) whether a State’s Attorney may overrule a probation officer’s decision to offer intermediate sanctions for a technical violation of probation pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(i).

The Court concluded that a probation officer’s filing of a petition charging a violation of probation was proper and did not violation separation of powers principles.  The State still bears the burden of proving the violation, and the court must still impose an appropriate sanction for the violation, if proved. 

Quick takes from today's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on October 27, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases A.B.A.T.E. of Ill., v. Quinn and Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Board. The Illinois Supreme Court summaries are included for Criminal case People v. Hill and Family Law case In re Dar. C. and Das. C., Minors.

CIVIL

A.B.A.T.E. of Ill., Inc. v. Quinn

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

This case concerned issues of legislative authority regarding an amendment to the Cycle

Rider Safety Training Act.  In 1993, the legislature amended the Cycle Rider Safety Training Fund (CRSTF) from a special fund inside the state treasury to a “trust fundoutside of the State treasury.” The appeal considered what effect this amendment had on the legislature’s authority to order the transfer of funds out of the CRSTF and into the General Revenue Fund (GRF).  The issues included whether the transfer of funds out of the CRSTF amounted to an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without just compensation and whether, in order to transfer funds out of the CRSTF, the legislature had to first amend the CRST Act. The appellate court held that the removal of funds from the CRSTF was not an unconstitutional taking and that the legislature had the authority to order a transfer of funds out of the CRSTF and into the GRF. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Board

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

Quick takes from Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on October 6, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case City of Chicago v. StubHub and criminal case People v. Taylor.

CIVIL

City of Chicago v. StubHub

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

Citing the state’s long history of protecting consumers, including the regulation of ticket resellers and “internet auctioneers,” the Illinois Supreme Court found that the City of Chicago overstepped its home rule authority in trying to collect “amusement taxes” on StubHub resales.  StubHub, a state-registered “internet auction listing service,” describes itself as “the world’s largest online ticket marketplace”; there, for a service fee, a user can buy and sell tickets to events throughout the country.  

The city notified StubHub that it might be a “reseller’s agent” subject to a local tax, and asked StubHub for information regarding its sales for Chicago events.  When StubHub refused, the city sued to obtain that information and for back taxes and penalties.  A federal district judge dismissed the case, and the city appealed.  Under Supreme Court Rule 20, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to answer a question posed by the Seventh Circuit:  “[W]hether municipalities may require electronic intermediators to collect and remit amusement taxes on resold tickets.”  The answer is no.

Quick takes from Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on September 22, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Peterson v. Peterson, Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co. and In re Mulroe and criminal cases People v. Masterson and People v. White.

CIVIL

Petersen v. Petersen

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

This family law case resolved the appropriate means by which to apportion postdissolution decree college expenses where the judgment of dissolution reserved the issue for future consideration.

The Petersens’ 1999 divorce decree provided that the court “expressly reserves the issue of each party’s obligation to contribute to the college…expenses of the parties’ children pursuant to Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Marriage Dissolution Act.”  The decree also ordered the husband (Kevin) to pay monthly child support.

In 2007, the wife (Janet) filed a petition to allocate past and future college expenses for their children.  The circuit court ordered Kevin to pay 75% of the total college expenses for all three children.  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the 2007 petition constituted a modification to the 1999 decree.  It held that the circuit court could not order Kevin to pay for those expenses that predated the filing of the petition.

Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on August 4, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the family law case O'Brien v. O'Brien and criminal case People v. White.

CIVIL

O’Brien v. O’Brien

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

This family law case actually involves the much broader issue of the proper standard to be used in deciding whether to substitute a judge “for cause.” 

Lisa O’Brien filed domestic battery charges against her estranged husband, John O’Brien. Judge Joseph Waldeck presided over an evidentiary hearing in that matter and made certain evidentiary rulings. Judge Waldeck subsequently presided over the couple’s marital dissolution proceedings. About one year after the dissolution case was pending, John sought a substitution of judge pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure section 2-1001(a)(3), which provides for substitution “for cause.” Another judge considered the matter and denied substitution. From the final judgment, John appealed and the case reached the Illinois Supreme Court on a certificate of importance.

Quick take on Monday's Illinois Supreme Court opinion Wirtz v. Quinn

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Chris Bonjean
By Michael T. Reagan, The Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan In Wirtz v. Quinn, Justice Burke wrote for a unanimous court in reversing the appellate court’s Opinion which had declared the 2009 Capital Projects Acts unconstitutional. This Opinion will serve as a modern Baedeker for the law of legislative drafting. This action, brought by Rockwell Wirtz and Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC, on behalf of taxpayers generally, was initiated by a complaint seeking to enjoin the disbursement of public funds pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/11-303. The statute requires that the action be commenced by filing a petition for leave to file, and requires that the circuit court find reasonable ground for filing before the complaint may be filed. The circuit court concluded that reasonable ground did not exist, and denied the petition. The appellate court found that PA 96-34 "An Act Concerning Revenue" violated Article IV, § 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, the single subject clause. The remaining three acts, consisting of an Appropriation Bill, a Trailer Bill and a Budget Implementation Bill, each expressly provided that it was passed contingent upon PA 96-34 becoming law. Because the appellate court found that PA 96-34 was void in its entirety, the remaining three bills were found to fall as well because of that contingency. The appellate court did not then have occasion to take up any of the other constitutional challenges to the bills. The supreme court granted the Petition for Leave to Appeal filed by the numerous governmental defendants and handled the case in a compressed timeframe. The supreme court reversed the appellate court’s holding that PA 96-34 violated the single subject clause. Then, in the interest of judicial economy, and perhaps in recognition of the practical fiscal importance of this dispute, the court addressed all of the other constitutional challenges pled in the taxpayers’ complaint, rather than remanding the case to the appellate court.

Quick take on today's Illinois Supreme Court opinion In re Jonathan C.B.

Posted on June 30, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

CRIMINAL

In re Jonathan C.B.

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender In  August  2006,  the  minor was charged with attempt robbery and criminal sexual  assault  by  use  of force. In the Supreme Court, the minor argued that he was not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that he was denied due process when he was shackled during his trial without an individualized determination of necessity under People v. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d 261 (1977), and  that  Section  5-101(3) of the Juvenile Court Act was unconstitutional because  juveniles charged with sexual offenses have a constitutional right to a jury trial. In  a  69-page opinion, the Court unanimously rejected the reasonable doubt claim  in  light  of the standard of review requiring the court to take the evidence  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  the  prosecution and to give deference to the findings of the trier of fact, here, the trial judge. The  Court  split  4-3 on the shackling claim, with the majority concluding that it was forfeited and that the record did not support the minor’s claim of  error.

Quick takes from today's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on June 16, 2011 by Chris Bonjean
Our panel of leading appellate attorney's review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court in civil opinions  Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison, Snyder v. Heidelberger, Genius v. County of Cook and criminal opinions People v. Ward, People v. White and People v. Hawkins.

CIVIL

Studt v. Sherman Health Systems

Quick take from today's Illinois Supreme Court opinion Italia Foods v. Sun Tours

Posted on June 3, 2011 by Chris Bonjean

CIVIL

Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc.

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC Advertisers beware: Illinois courts need not wait for the green light from the General Assembly to hear claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2000).  Italia Foods, the class action plaintiff, alleged that the defendant travel agency sent Italia 28 unsolicited faxes advertising discount travel.  Italia joined forces with other unhappy recipients to seek redress under the TCPA, which Congress enacted to address telemarketing abuses through the use of fax machines and other devices. After the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, it certified three questions for interlocutory review, but the supreme court focused primarily on the first question: whether the TCPA requires the state to enact enabling legislation before private TCPA claims can proceed in Illinois state courts.  The supreme court found the statutory language, allowing private claims to proceed in state courts “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State,” to be ambiguous.  Guided by a 2007 appellate decision and the Supremacy Clause, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that no state legislation was required.  See U.S. Const., art. vi, cl. 2; First Capital Mortgage Corp. v. United Federal Bank, 374 Ill. App. 3d 739 (1st Dist.

Quick takes from Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Chris Bonjean
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday’s Supreme Court opinions from Civil cases General Motors v. Pappas, Auburn v. IDOR and Bell v. Hutsell and Criminal cases People v. Absher and People v. Marshall.

CIVIL

General Motors v. Pappas

Pages