Articles From Albert E. Durkin

Case Review: Doe v. Coe By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, October 2018 The appellate court ruled in Jane Doe v. Chad Coe, et al. that strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 191(a) is mandatory and failure to attach documents relied upon in support of a 191(a) affidavit is fatal.
Strict Compliance with Supreme Court Rule 191(a) is mandatory By Albert E. Durkin Bench and Bar, September 2017 On August 17, the Second District Appellate Court ruled that strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 191(a) is mandatory and that failure to attach documents relied upon in support of a 191(a) affidavit is fatal.
Can a defendant be compelled to submit to a Rule 215 physical or mental examination? By Albert E. Durkin Mental Health Law, February 2017 Are there circumstances where a plaintiff can request that the Court compel the defendant to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician designated by the plaintiff? The case of Jane Doe v. Norman Weinzweig answers that question.
Can a defendant be compelled to submit to a Rule 215 physical or mental examination? By Albert E. Durkin Bench and Bar, January 2017 Are there circumstances where a plaintiff can request that the Court compel the defendant to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician designated by the plaintiff?
Can a defendant be compelled to submit to a Rule 215 physical or mental examination? By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, December 2016 Are there circumstances where a plaintiff can request that the Court compel the defendant to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician designated by the plaintiff? The case of Jane Doe v. Norman Weinzweig answers that question.
Good-faith settlement—When to settle By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, October 2016 A look at the factors all parties must take into consideration when deciding when and how to settle a workers’ compensation case involving a third-party defendant/employer.
Removal and remand: A primer By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, March 2011 A defendant can petition to remove a state court claim to a court of federal jurisdiction if the case could have originally been brought in a federal court or in certain circumstances upon the federal court’s discretion.
Condition, cause AND foreseeability By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, April 2010 When an attorney is faced with questions as to when conduct is a cause and when it is only a condition, close attention must be paid to a plaintiff’s conduct.
The ethics of fee sharing in tort law cases By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, October 2009 In the field of plaintiff personal injury litigation, a substantial amount of business is received on a referral basis. Tort practitioners commonly are referred cases from fellow lawyers who do not practice in that chosen field.  
Production of financial records by a Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) Expert Witnesses By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, July 2007 The Illinois Appellate Courts have not created a bright line rule as to whether production of extrinsic evidence to support financial claims made by expert witnesses should be required, although this issue has been hotly litigated elsewhere.
New reality, New responsibility: Technology & demonstrative evidence in the courtroom By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, December 2005 Because technology is now everywhere—we as lawyers have the responsibility to make sure that “everywhere” includes courtrooms.
Spoliation after Dardeen … back to Boyd By Albert E. Durkin & Tressa A. Pankovits Tort Law, March 2005 The existence or nonexistence of a duty imposed upon parties to preserve evidence pertinent to civil actions has been hotly debated in the Illinois courts for more than a century.
Effective uses of Supreme Court Rule 216 requests to admit By Albert E. Durkin Tort Law, December 2003 Requests for Admissions of Facts and Requests for Admission of Genuineness of Documents, a.k.a., "requests to admit," are an effective and often-overlooked discovery tool.
Increased risk of future injury found compensable By Albert E. Durkin, Jr. Tort Law, December 2002 In a ruling that surprised many, the Illinois Supreme Court recently overturned nearly 80 years of existing law by holding that a plaintiff is entitled to obtain compensation for a future injury, stemming from a previous injury, even if it is not reasonably certain to occur.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author