Personal representatives and special administrators in tort claims: There is a differenceBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2013Should civil procedure rules should bar prima facie claims where a party dies in the tempest of a garden-variety personal injury claim? Or, frankly, what is the difference between a “special administrator” and a “personal representative”?
Traveling employee theory does not extend to employer tort liabilityBy Jason G. SchutteCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2013The traveling employee concept from workers compensation cases cannot be utilized to hold an employer liable for its employee’s tortious conduct through respondeat superior.
All that snow: Barber v. G.J. Partners, Inc.By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Rachel FugettCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2013Premise liability for a fall with injuries after snow was shoveled was at the heart of the case of Barber v. G.J. Partners, Inc.
Costs: an imbroglio for trial courts and practitionersBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2013What constitutes an allowable "cost" is not subject to any bright line test. In large part, this uncertainty stems from Illinois cost statutes that do not say what "costs" are recoverable.
Railroads gain more ground: Illinois appellate court reverses $700,143.70 jury verdict after Choate decisionBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Christina FaklisCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2013Immediately after the Illinois Supreme Court decided Choate v. Indiana Harbor Railroad Co., it used its supervisory authority and ordered the First District Appellate Court to vacate its prior ruling in McDonald v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp.
What are “allowable costs” in trial practice—2013By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2013In his article published over a decade ago (and reprinted in this issue), the author argued that our trial judges and trial lawyers needed a rule that actually reflected what costs were allowable in trials and summary judgment motions litigation in state court. The currency of that argument abides today.
Minimal property damage as evidence of non-injuryBy John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2008Despite the youth of the century, the Twenty-First has already spawned six cases from four Appellate Court districts dealing with defense efforts to establish lack of plaintiff’s injury by showing minimal vehicle contact.
The mailbox rule does not apply to refiling of a voluntarily dismissed complaintBy Kimberly L. DahlenCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2007In Wilson v. Brant, 374 Ill.App.3d 306, 869 N.E.2d 818 (1st Dist. 2007), a unanimous First District Appellate Court determined that the mailbox rule does not apply to the commencement of any action, specifically in this case, where a plaintiff refiled a complaint after taking a voluntary dismissal.
Pay[ment] attention: a lesson in avoiding unintended accord and satisfactionBy J. Matthew PfeifferCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2007A fairly recent decision from the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois will likely have corporate office managers, accounts receivable employees, and the like, double-checking each payment and correspondence received from their customers to make sure the fate that met the plaintiff in MKL Pre-Press Electronics/MKL Computer Media Supplies, Inc. v. La Crosse Litho Supply, LLC, 361 Ill.App.3d 872, 840 N.E.2d 687 (1st Dist. 2005), does not befall them.
Petitions for relief from judgments under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401By Kimberly A. Davis & James F. McCluskeyCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2007Pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, a litigant is allowed the proverbial two bites at the apple to vacate a default order or other final order or judgment.
The saga of admissibility of vehicular post-collision photographs continuesBy Stephen C. BuserCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2007The First District Appellate Court decided nearly four years ago in Dicosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill.App. 3d 530, 794 N.E. 2d 875, 276 Ill.Dec.625 (1st Dist. 2003) that vehicular post-collision photographs were not admissible in automobile accident litigation absent expert testimony.
Illinois law governs products case with complicated conflict of law analysisBy Kathryn R. HoyingCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2007The 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.
Substitution of judge as of rightBy Timothy W. KellyTort Law, March 2006In Aussieker v. The City of Bloomington, the Fourth District Appellate Court addressed the issue of whether each individually named plaintiff in a multiple party lawsuit is entitled to one motion for substitution of judge as of right pursuant to section 2-1001(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as opposed to one substitution for the group of plaintiffs as a whole.
How to handle an employer’s group health plan lienBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2006As a result of an accident, the plaintiff was injured. He brings a suit in circuit court for negligence. His damages include medical bills that were paid for by his employer’s group health insurance plan. After pursuing discovery, including depositions, the case settles. The health plan asserts a lien for the amount it paid. How should the lawyer handle the employer’s group health plan lien?
Rescission/Restitution: Be careful what you ask for, you may get itBy John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2005The subject of this article involves the doctrine of contract rescission and the court’s application of restitution following the order of rescission.
How many plaintiffs make a party?By Daniel B. ShanesBench and Bar, September 2005In most lawsuits, the plaintiff and defendant are each entitled to one motion for substitution of judge as a matter of right. But how does that apply in a multiple-plaintiff civil case?
Casenotes by members of the Northern Illinois University Law ReviewBy David NeumanCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2005The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided an insurance coverage case that will affect the way insurance companies write policies and handle their responsibilities to insureds.
Discovery and the Fifth AmendmentBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2002The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Discovery practicum: intertwine inquiriesBy William J. BorahCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2002Illinois' litigation discovery process intertwines a myriad of strategic measures of inquiry designed to pluck evidence from the other party.
Navqi v. Rossiello: an IRS malpractice trap for the unwary practitionerBy Richard L. TurnerCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2002The appellate court recently determined that an attorney and law firm representing an employee who successfully recovered damages for retaliatory discharge may be pursued for malpractice in failing to properly advise the client of the taxability of the proceeds from the settlement, despite a somewhat unsettled legal climate concerning the taxability of such proceeds at the time the advice was rendered
Negligent infliction of emotional distress in Illinois—Rickey v. CTA revisitedBy John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2002In the 18 years since Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court, recovery for emotional distress due to negligence has undergone some significant evolution.
Soto restates the law governing opinion testimony as to permanency of injuryBy Robert HandleyCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2001A recent decision from the Second Appellate District has reexamined the criteria a trial court should consider in deciding whether a physician may render an opinion on the issue of the permanency of a plaintiff's injuries.
Editor’s noteCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2001The editors apologize for having failed to identify the authors of the following articles in the June 2001 edition of Trial Briefs:
