Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoDecember 2005In the first article of this edition, Albert E. Durkin of the newly formed firm of Miroballi, Durkin & Rudin, explains the benefits of being alert to ever-advancing technology and how it can be used to an advantage in the courtroom.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoNovember 2005The first article in this edition is written by Karen Enright and Ruth Degnan of Winters, Enright, Salzetta & O’Brien. In Clifford v. Wharton Business Group, L.L.C., the First District Appellate Court elaborated on the distraction exception to the open and obvious doctrine.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoJune 2005The first article in this edition is written by William Allison of Allison & Mosby-Scott. Mr. Allison highlights a new wrinkle in the oft-controversial Frye analysis.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoMarch 2005An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoJanuary 2005The first article in this edition, written by Scott Lane of Lane & Lane, tracks the evolution of "aggravation of a pre-existing condition" over the last 10 years, culminating in the withdrawal of IPI 30.03 in late 2004.
Moving as the non-movantBy Anthony LongoJune 2005Time is the great enemy of all people, and lawyers are no exception. Often in litigation, a primary goal of your client is to move things along quickly, rather than at a pace dictated by other parties.
Open & obvious—Or have you forgotten?By Karen McNulty Enright & Ruth DegnanNovember 2005The First District Appellate Court recently provided an instructive and comprehensive decision on the distraction exception to the open and obvious doctrine in Clifford v. Wharton Business Group.
Rule 222—A ticking time bombBy Robert FinkNovember 2005Unlike “requests to admit,” Rule 222, Limited and Simplified Discovery in Certain Cases, has not been the focus of much attention. It, however, has been increasingly used to devastating effect and is a potentially more powerful tool than requests to admit.
Spoliation after Dardeen … back to BoydBy Albert E. Durkin & Tressa A. PankovitsMarch 2005The existence or nonexistence of a duty imposed upon parties to preserve evidence pertinent to civil actions has been hotly debated in the Illinois courts for more than a century.
Supreme court gives lesson on FryeBy William A. AllisonJune 2005The Illinois Supreme Court was recently presented with a question regarding the admissibility of actuarial risk assessment to predict whether a convicted sex offender would commit sexually violent crimes in the future.
Update on liensBy Charles H. DelanoJanuary 2005The settlement of personal injury cases often involves negotiation not just with the defendant, but with health insurers, the Department of Public Aid, ERISA plans, or other third-party payors who may make claims upon the settlement proceeds.