Hanks v. Cotler: An example of the “apogee of disingenuousness”By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Daniel J. BishopCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2012Justice Terry Lavin’s opinion in Hanks v. Cotler constitutes an excellent play-by-play analysis of the intersection of the statutes of limitations and the statutes of repose with the common-law discovery rule.
Parenthood in civil casesBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2012Is it time to comprehensively examine all parentage statutes, or to recognize broader common law powers that would serve childrens’ best interests without interfering with the superior rights of parents?
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases?By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick AndesBench and Bar, April 2012The Supreme Court’s transition from Callesto Jablonskisuggests that in negligent-product-design claims specifically and in products liability litigation generally, the Illinois Supreme Court may not yet be restricting duty analysis solely to the risk-utility test but has incorporated the consumer expectation test as a factor into the risk-utility test.
Gotta get back in time: Limitations of rescue by the savings statuteBy Adam B. WhitemanCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2012If you intend to voluntarily dismiss a case with the intent of re-filing under the savings statute, you should be very careful to populate the dismissed complaint with as many facts and issues as possible.
Sufficiency of tender terminating right to judgment interestBy Mark RouleauCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2012The recent First District case of Poliszczuk v. Winkler, 2011 Ill. App. 1st Dist. 101847, discusses in detail what constitutes a sufficient tender of payment of judgment so as to toll the defendant’s further obligation to pay judgment interest pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Appeals court examines amounts in controversyBy Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, December 2011In two recent cases the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered how to determine what amount of money is at issue in a lawsuit.
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases?By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick AndesCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2011The Supreme Court’s transition from Callesto Jablonskisuggests that in negligent-product-design claims specifically and in products liability litigation generally, the Illinois Supreme Court may not yet be restricting duty analysis solely to the risk-utility test but has incorporated the consumer expectation test as a factor into the risk-utility test.
Pleading affirmative defenses post-Iqbal and TwomblyBy Ferne P. WolfFederal Civil Practice, December 2011Just how much additional language will be sufficient to satisfy Twombly and Iqbal’s enhanced pleading requirement remains to be seen.
One bite at the apple: Examining pro se litigants’ right to appointed counsel in civil casesBy Hon. E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.Bench and Bar, October 2011The Sixth Amendment ensures that individuals facing criminal charges have the right to appointed counsel; however, no such right exists in the civil realm. Whether a court appoints counsel to a pro se litigant in a civil case largely depends on court resources as well as the availability of pro bono programs.
Information of NoteCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2011ISBA updates of interest to members of the Civil Practice & Procedure Section.
Intrusion upon seclusion: A new tort?By John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2011Notwithstanding the lack of endorsement or approval from the Illinois Supreme Court, there is sufficient Appellate Court approval for intrusion upon seclusion in Illinois.
To disclose or not to disclose under FRCP(a)(2) —That now is the question!By Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, June 2011The Seventh Circuit has issued a trio of opinions during the past six months or more that stress the need for counsel to evaluate what opinion testimony at trial might require counsel to make disclosures beforehand under FRCP 26(a)(2).
Trial court subject matter jurisdictionBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2011The term “jurisdiction” in civil actions in Illinois circuit courts has many definitions, often leading to much confusion. Some of the confusion should be reduced by the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Luis R.
The effect of Iqbal v. Ashcroft in the Seventh CircuitBy Patricia A. ZimmerTort Law, May 2011This case puts to rest the prior standard, that a complaint will not be dismissed pursuant to 12(b)(6) “unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts.”
Obtaining documents abroad: A primer for Illinois attorneysBy Timothy J. Chorvat & Matthew A. WlodarczykCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2011A look at the law relating to obtaining documents from sources abroad, and some suggestions on how to maximize the likelihood of obtaining useful information.
The lien epic: Don’t lose your attorney’s lienBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2011If we follow the rules as to attorney fee liens we possess, much like all the other lien claimants might have, we can make the final disposition of the litigation a lot more certain.
The preclusive effect of res judicata rulingsBy Laura L. MilnichukCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2011A look at Williams, et al. v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, et al., which addressed the res judicata effect of the dismissals of certain claims in an original lawsuit when voluntary dismissals of said claims were later taken and a second lawsuit re-filed
Revisiting remittiturBy Stacey LynchTort Law, April 2011While remittitur is a useful tool when used correctly, if it's used incorrectly it has financial and constitutional implications.
Shared interest negotiationBy Hon. Bruno J. TassoneTort Law, April 2011Principled negotiation is simply a common sense method to decide issues on their merits rather than through a contest of will power.
New federal procedural rulesBy Jay H. SchollFederal Civil Practice, March 2011A brief review of the December 2010 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Removal and remand: A primerBy Albert E. DurkinTort Law, March 2011A 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.
Mortgage foreclosures: In rem or quasi in rem? The distinction that makes a differenceBy Robert HandleyCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, February 2011In this recent case the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court, thereby dismissing the foreclosure action filed by ABN AMRO Mortgage Group.
SLAPP has a biteBy John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2010In a flurry of appellate activity, Illinois now has four interpretations of the Citizen’s Participation Act--the first published appellate decisions interpreting the legislative purpose of the SLAPP statute passed by the Illinois Legislature in 2007.
