Browse articles by year: 2018 (6)
2017 (5)
2016 (13)
2015 (20)
2014 (17)
2013 (7)
2012 (19)
2011 (12)
2010 (14)
2009 (12)
2008 (16)
2007 (9)
2006 (15)
2005 (15)
2004 (15)
2003 (19)
2002 (18)
2001 (9)
2000 (21)
1999 (15)
Newsletter Articles From 2009
Brainlash: Be aware of this insidious disorder
By Scott A. Berndtson
June 2009
When you interview your next whiplash-injured client be alert for other latent problems resulting from a brainlash as well and what to do if they exist.
Case Note: Forsythe, et al. v. Clark USA, Inc.
By Kevin T. Veugeler
September 2009
In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court has recognized a cause of action against a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary that results in a workplace injury.
Editor’s note
By John L. Nisivaco
October 2009
Thank you to all of the contributors. The articles are excellent and we hope you find the materials helpful. ■
Editor’s note
By John L. Nisivaco
September 2009
An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s note
By John L. Nisivaco
June 2009
An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s note
By John L. Nisivaco
May 2009
An introduction to the issue from editor John Nisivaco.
The ethics of fee sharing in tort law cases
By Albert E. Durkin
October 2009
In the field of plaintiff personal injury litigation, a substantial amount of business is received on a referral basis. Tort practitioners commonly are referred cases from fellow lawyers who do not practice in that chosen field.
The progeny of Arthur v. Catour
By James K. Theisen
May 2009
How much can a plaintiff be awarded for medical bills if the plaintiff’s health insurance pays the medical bills at a discounted rate? Should the plaintiff receive an award for the full amount or just the discounted amount? How much can a plaintiff be awarded for medical expenses provided free of charge? These questions are answered by the collateral source rule.
When consultants’ opinions are discoverable
By Lauryn E. Parks and James F. McCluskey
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.