Abolish Rule 23 non-precedential ordersBy Robert T. ParkDecember 2014Many Rule 23 orders contain important and unique statements of the law, which could be of value to brief writers and judicial decision makers at the trial and appellate level.
Clear warning for attorneys in wrongful death casesBy Mark RouleauAugust 2014The case of Estate of Powell v. John C. Wunsch, P.C. stands as a clear lesson for all plaintiffs’ counsel that they must seek to probate the portions of settlements that are allocated to minors and incompetents that exceed $5,000.
Compensation for household servicesBy Mark RouleauJune 2014Anytime a person is unable to perform their ordinary job duties causing them to suffer a loss of income it is very likely that they also suffer a loss of the household services that they would have ordinarily provided to themselves or their spouses. This element of damages is frequently overlooked even though it is very easily calculated.
Developments in piercing the corporate veilBy George S. Bellas & Misty J. CyganJune 2014In Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469, the appellate court clarified a somewhat confusing area of law—veil-piercing—in its reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint.
Employer may be liable for deaths after employee sent threats from company computerBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Jessica L. FangmanOctober 2014On August 12, 2014 the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, decided Regions Bank v. Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc., finding an employer may be liable for the deaths of an employee’s wife and children, when death threats were sent by the employee to himself and his family using the employer’s computer network, and the employer voluntary undertook the responsibility to provide security and surveillance for their safety but failed to do so.
Evolving Illinois parentage lawsBy Jeffrey A. ParnessApril 2014A look at what the trends, driven by changes in technology and human conduct toward legal parentage beyond biological ties and formal adoptions, mean for civil litigators.
Falling down and proximate causeBy Robert T. ParkApril 2014The recent decision in Vertin v. Mau illustrates that in a premises liability claim, plaintiff must show the reason for a fall, not just that defendant might be to blame.
For general jurisdiction, there’s no place like homeBy Shawn Wood & Josh JubelirerApril 2014In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the United States Supreme Court recently limited the application of general jurisdiction in a decision that stands to undermine forum shopping and profoundly impact where large companies may be sued.
General partner liability on a judgment against the partnershipBy Jeffrey A. ParnessNovember 2014When the negligence of a partnership employee caused one harm, can one sue a partner on a theory of respondent superior in a 2007 case and then, after losing that claim, sue the same partner in 2013 for the unsatisfied portion of the judgment entered against the general partnership in the earlier case?
The Illinois Supreme Court expands the reach of the Code of Civil Procedure’s six-year statute of reposeBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Griffen ThorneMarch 2014On February 21, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court decided Evanston Insurance Company v. Riseborough, holding that the six-year statute of repose from section 13-214/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies to “the performance of professional services,” includes services where the parties have no fiduciary duty, and claims that are not limited to legal malpractice.
Representing a corporation in state court—Redux 2014By Patrick M. KinnallyMay 2014Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings declares why a corporation needs a lawyer as a representative in our state courts as well as in certain types of administrative hearings.
Severance agreements do not create new debt and are valid under the Park District CodeBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Griffen ThorneMay 2014The bottom line in Wheeling Park District v. Arnold is that although park district board members can be given broad authority—like the running of day-to-day operations or the ability to hire and fire—that authority cannot extend to binding a park district in any agreement that “creates any debt, obligation, claim or liability.”