Section Newsletter Articles on Illinois Supreme Court Rules

Supreme Court allows juror questioning of witnesses: New Supreme Court Rule 243 By Mark Rouleau Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted a new rule, S.C.R. 243, which takes effect July 1, 2012.
Partial use of depositions: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2012 In essence, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) is a codification of the common law rule of completeness as it applies to depositions
The ARDC can now investigate and prosecute the unauthorized practice of law—Good news for immigrants By Scott D. Pollock International and Immigration Law, January 2012 Last month the Illinois Supreme Court amended its rules, thereby enhancing the ARDC's authority and benefiting immigrants to the U.S. and their family members, who have a particularly critical need for competent legal advice and representation. 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule adds unauthorized practice of law to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission’s responsibilities By William A. Price Administrative Law, January 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted amendments to its rules of practice (751 and 752(a) and 779, effective December 7, 2011. The new rules allow investigation and prosecution by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of instances of unauthorized practice of law by disbarred or unregistered lawyers, and by other persons and organizations.
Rule 23 unpublished opinions: To cite, or not to cite By Stacey Lynch Insurance Law, January 2012 Despite the recent availability of Rule 23 orders in cyber space, the prohibition to citation of a Rule 23 order, with the exceptions being the limited circumstances enumerated in (e)(1) of the rule, remains intact.
Discovery of those online: Using Supreme Court Rule 224 to ascertain the identity of anonymous online posters By Patrick M. Kinnally Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2011 Supreme Court Rule 224 provides that a person may file an independent action seeking discovery before a suit is filed to determine the identity of one who may be responsible in damages. And in the recent case of Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., it was used to identify the posters of critical online commentary.
A primer on deposing a Rule 215 medical examiner By John L. Nisivaco Tort Law, October 2011 Preparation tips for deposing an expert witness.
Changes to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 By Maxine Weiss Kunz Young Lawyers Division, April 2011 An explanation of the recent changes, which took effect on January 1, 2011.
Voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit and later refiling is not an escape hatch through which to disclose new witnesses if witness disclosure deadlines already passed in the original lawsuit By Alyx J. Parker Young Lawyers Division, April 2011 An attorney must take great care when dealing with Rule 213 witness disclosure deadlines, as a voluntary dismissal will not remedy omissions by simply re-filing the lawsuit and disclosing the omitted witness(es).
Admitting a party’s discovery deposition By Jeffrey A. Parness Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2011 A recent amendment to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules allows into evidence an unavailable party’s discovery deposition pursuant to the “sound discretion” of the court when it “will do substantial justice between or among the parties.”
Brookbank v. Olson: Can a Judge excuse a party from signing requests to admit? By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2011 The Third District Appellate Court recently ruled that a party’s attorney may not sign and verify a response to a Supreme Court Rule 216 request to admit facts when the attorney cannot locate his client.
Letter from the Chair By Amina Saeed Racial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, February 2011 A letter to colleagues from Committee Chair Amina Saeed.
The Affirmative Damage Rule By Kevin Lovellette and Cody Cocanig Government Lawyers, September 2010 The Affirmative Damage Rule gives us the ability to impeach witnesses that we call, thereby limiting the damage done to our case by our own witnesses.
Recent amendment to Supreme Court Rule 304(b) and its impact on family law cases By Hon. Edward R. Jordan and Mary Jane Theis Bench and Bar, August 2010 Two judges share their perspectives on the recently amended child custody rules.
Chair’s column: Rule 304(a) findings and “final orders” By Brian L. McPheters General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, July 2010 The cautious practitioner will look at a judgment he or she might want to appeal and consider the following: Does the order dispose of an entire claim in the case? If declaratory judgment is involved, does the order terminate the controversy or some part thereof? If so, request a Rule 304(a) finding.
Recent amendment to Supreme Court Rule 304(b) and its impact on family law cases By Hon. Edward R. Jordan and Hon. Mary Jane Theis Family Law, May 2010 Two judicial perspectives of how the recently adopted Supreme Court Rule 922 will affect custody cases.
Supreme Court Rule 191 By Hon. Pamela E. Loza Family Law, April 2010 Rule 191 pertains only to Motions for Summary Judgment, Motion for Involuntary dismissal based upon certain defects or defenses, and Motions to Objection of Jurisdiction Over the Person, and defines the requirements for the affidavits which must accompany the responses to those motions.
Failure to comply with Rule 431(b)’s Direction to Inquire of Jurors of the Defendants’ Enumerated Rights may be reversible error By J. Randall Cox Traffic Laws and Courts, March 2010 Rule 431(b) requires a trial court to ask each potential juror individually, or in a group, whether each understands and accepts four principles.
Supreme Court Rule update: “You’ve got mail” By Hon. Barbara Crowder Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2010 The Illinois Supreme Court has now amended Supreme Court Rules 11, 12, 361, 267, 373, 381 and 383 in recognition of the popularity and efficiency of third-party commercial carriers. Attorneys will no longer run afoul of the rules by accidentally using a commercial carrier over the Postal Service when filing documents with courts or applying the mailbox rule to deadlines.
Comments on Rule 1.13 from the Co-chair of the Joint Committee on Ethics 2000 By Robert Creamer Administrative Law, January 2010 The October 2009 IBJ article made no specific mention of Comment [9] to new Rule 1.13 because of space limitations on what could be covered; and many other interesting and deserving topics were omitted as well. 
Terms of engagement By Darrell Dies Trusts and Estates, January 2010 If using an engagement letter is a foreign concept to you, then you will benefit from reviewing this article, which summarizes a couple of the new Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court that became effective January 1, 2010
Supreme Court Rule 213(f)—Witness interrogatories By Ross S. Levey Family Law, December 2009 As divorce practitioners, we sometimes gloss over the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules.
Time is of the essence, or is it? By John B. Kincaid Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2009 Two recent Rule 23 Orders decided by separate panels of the Second District Appellate Court appear to conflict as to whether a court can limit the cross-examination of a witness or the submission of evidence which supports the litigant’s case.
Timing is everything: Jury instructions and Supreme Court Rule update By Hon. Barbara Crowder Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2009 An examination of the changes to Jury Instruction 1.01 issued in May 2009 and the June 2009 modification of Supreme Court Rule 239 effective September 1, 2009.
When consultants’ opinions are discoverable By Lauryn E. Parks and James F. McCluskey Tort Law, October 2009 The purpose of Illinois Rule 201(b)(3), as well as other comparable rules, is focused on protecting the identity of the consultant in order to encourage the communication of expertise. 
Contingency Planning: Motion to Stay—Preparing to counteract a possible negative ruling By Susan M. Brazas General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, July 2009 Where the client (or the client’s children) stand to suffer great harm in the event that the court makes a ruling adverse to their position, the attorney should consider preparing, in advance, a Motion to Stay enforcement of the court’s judgment pending appeal.
Update on Supreme Court Rule 103(b): Filing the complaint is not enough By Jim Williams and Denise Hemmer Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2009 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) has required reasonable diligence in obtaining service for years.
Supreme Court Rule 236 and the admissibility of medical records at trial By Stephen C. Buser Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2008 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 236 can be a useful tool for the admission of medical and hospital records into evidence at trial, eliminating the need for a party to spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to have a medical doctor, nurse or other health care professional testify in court or by evidence deposition to have the records admitted.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315(c)(3): An appellate trap for the unwary By Matthew R. Carter Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2008 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315 establishes rules for preparing an appeal from the Illinois appellate court to the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 315.
What’s in a name? It depends on whether you are seeking Rule 137 sanctions By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2008 Last year, the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois joined other Illinois appellate districts in deciding that while courts may sanction a person who signed a court paper, a represented party, or both pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, no authority exists within that rule for courts to sanction a law firm.


Select a Different Subject