Publications

Section Newsletter Articles From John J. Holevas

Will the real Jesse Gurley please accept service By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2019 In Pickens v. Aahmes Temple #132 LLC, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling that service of process was proper when the defendant listed the name of its registered agent but failed to include the agent’s correct suffix when another person by the same name with a different suffix was the individual actually served.
The new Rules of Federal Procedure—They’re here By John J. Holevas Federal Civil Practice, February 2016 A highlight of five of the most significant changes to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When is a mailbox not a mailbox? By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2014 According to the Second District Appellate Court, the use of FedEx delivery for service of a tax appeal does not trigger the “mailbox rule.”
Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse dedicated By John J. Holevas Federal Civil Practice, December 2011 The beautiful Stanley J. Roszkowski Courthouse is a six-story building which features a glass atrium entrance and a glass enclosed jury assembly room. The facility will house the United States Clerk’s Office, two bankruptcy courtrooms, three district courtrooms, as well as offices for the U.S. Marshals, U.S. Attorney, probation and pre-trial services, the United States Public Defender, Department of Homeland Security, and GSA.
Common carrier’s duty to passengers versus the natural accumulation rule By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, September 2010 In Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the consequences of requiring the CTA to inspect every platform for a natural accumulation of snow and ice every time a train was to discharge or take on passengers would bring the transit system to a standstill.
Admissibility of an expert opinion prior to or after class certification? By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, July 2010 The 7th Circuit found that when an expert’s report or testimony is critical to class certification and forms the basis of plaintiff’s theory, a district court must conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert’s qualification or submissions prior to ruling on a class certification motion.
Admissibility of an expert opinion prior to or after class certification? By John J. Holevas Federal Civil Practice, June 2010 The 7th Circuit ultimately concluded that when an expert’s report or testimony is critical to class certification and forms the basis of plaintiff’s theory, a district court must conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert’s qualification or submissions prior to ruling on a class certification motion.
Appellate court rejects prescribed means exception to natural accumulation doctrine By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2009 In Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 2590089 (1st Dist., Aug. 20, 2009), the First District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, rejecting adoption of the “prescribed means” exception to the common law natural accumulation doctrine.
Maintaining separate actions in various judicial circuits in Illinois and/or other states By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2008 In re: Marriage of Gary, 894 N.E.2d 809 (2d Dist. 2008), the Appellate Court for the Second District clarified under what circumstances a trial court may enjoin the parties to a suit from maintaining separate causes of action in multiple Illinois circuit courts or in other states. 
Should the FDA’s approval of medical devices preempt state court products liability suits? By John J. Holevas Federal Civil Practice, June 2008 Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Trial court erred in allowing defendant to withdraw rejection of arbitration award By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2008 The Second District Appellate Court recently reversed a lower court’s decision in Stemple v. Pickerill, which allowed the defendant to withdraw his rejection of an arbitration award made pursuant to the court annexed mandatory arbitration program, while denying the plaintiffs from filing their own rejection of such an award.
Due process requires live testimony to judge witness credibility By John J. Holevas Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2008 The Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court in Anderson v. Kohler, 376 Ill.App.3d 714, 877 N.E.2d 110, 315 Ill.Dec. 623 (2nd Dist. Oct. 4, 2007), recently reversed the lower court’s decision for relying on a transcript of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief from a prior trial rather than allowing the plaintiffs to present their case-in-chief anew. 

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