Articles From Kathryn R. Hoying

Court reinforces prohibition against using deceased party’s discovery deposition as trial evidence By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2007 In the matter of Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc., 374 Ill.App.3d 549, 871 N.E.2d 72 (5th Dist. 2007), the appellate court reconciled Illinois Supreme Court Rules 212(a)(3) and 212(a)(5), and affirmed the trial court’s order barring the use of a deceased plaintiff’s discovery deposition as evidence at trial. Plaintiffs, a truck driver and his wife, filed suit for bodily injury and loss of consortium allegedly suffered in connection with the husband’s employment.
Recent developments under Batson By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2007 In the matter of Mack v. Anderson, the appellate court addressed the seminal case on the prohibition against racial discrimination in jury selection, Batson v. Kentucky, and reversed the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Batson motion.
Court reviews jury instructions, expert testimony, remittitur and post-judgment interest By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2007 In the recent strict products liability case of Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., the court resolved a number of issues where a decedent’s estate alleged a defective design of a collapsing front seat against Ford, and negligence against the other driver, whose negligence was determined by summary judgment.
Illinois law governs products case with complicated conflict of law analysis By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2007 The recent case of Townsend v. Sears Roebuck and Co., involves a conflict of laws analysis regarding strict liability, punitive damages and limits (“caps”) on noneconomic damages between Illinois and Michigan.
Beware of putting attorney-client communications at issue or face waiver of privilege By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2006 In Lama v. Preskill, 353 Ill. App. 3d 300, 818 N.E.2d 443 (2nd Dist. 2004), the Second District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that certain contested documents were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, but reversed the trial court’s contempt order entered against plaintiff and her attorney for refusal to tender the contested documents to opposing counsel.

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