Accountant liability to third parties in Illinois
In the wake of the Arthur Anderson/ENRON debacle, it has become increasingly important for attorneys to understand the liability to third parties to which unwary accountants may be exposed.
The first article in this edition is written by Al Durkin of The Nolan Law Group. Mr. Durkin proposes effective uses of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 requests to admit.
The first article in this edition is written by Jeffrey Kroll of Clifford Law Offices. Jeff does an excellent job of analyzing Dicosola v. Bowman, the recent First District Appellate Court decision involving the inadmissibility of photographs depicting minimal vehicular damage to support the defense argument that no injury occurred.
The first article in this edition is written by Monica McFadden of McFadden Law Offices in Chicago.
The first article in this edition is written by Frank A. Perrecone of Ferolie, Perrecone & White, Ltd., of Rockford. Mr. Perrecone provides suggestions for the proactive use of amended Supreme Court Rule 213 and provides helpful suggestions for attorneys seeking to expedite the litigation of their cases.
The first article in this edition is written by Marios Karayannis of Brady & Jensen, located in Elgin, Illinois.
The first article in this edition is written by Michael W. Clancy of Clancy Law Offices in St. Charles, Illinois.
Effective use of SCR 213(f)
On July 1, 2002, amendments to Supreme Court Rule 213 went into effect. SCR 213(f) created a new system of categorizing witnesses: Lay witness, independent expert witness and controlled expert witness.
The Health Care Services Lien Act
Earlier this year, the Illinois legislature attempted to remedy the inequitable results that could occur to seriously injured individuals as a consequence of the Illinois Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Burrell v. Southern Truss, 176 Ill.2d 171, 697 N.E.2d 1230, 223 Ill.Dec. 457 (1997).
No damage? No expert? No defense!!
In a case of first impression in Illinois, the First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision granting plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude photographs depicting the apparent minimal damage to plaintiff's post-collision vehicle.
In today's workplace, employees are increasingly placed in danger as a result of contact with more exotic chemicals, the use of more sophisticated and complex machinery, the prevalence of plants and factories with sealed windows allowing no outside air to enter and a variety of other factors affecting job safety.