Articles Posted in Illinois Supreme Court

by

In a car crash case in which the plaintiff claimed injury, the jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had not preserved the appealed issues and affirmed the decision of the jury and the trial court in favor of the defendant.

On appeal from a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff, Warren G. Hamilton, asked the Illinois Appellate Court to grant his request for judgment as a matter of law on the liability and to return the case the trial judge on the issue of damages.

Hamilton thought he preserved the issue for appeal by (1) asking for a directed verdict or in the jury instructions conference; and (2) filing an opposed trial motion under §2-1202(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure that argued, among other things, the “defendant was negligent as a matter of law” and “the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff at the close of evidence.” In the same motion, Hamilton argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and closed by asking for a new trial, not judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability.

Continue reading

by

Retired United States Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens spoke at the 15th Annual Justice John Paul Stevens Award Luncheon. The Justice John Paul Stevens Award was conceived by Justice Stevens’s former law clerks. The first time it was presented was in September 2000. The award is given by both The Chicago Bar Foundation and The Chicago Bar Association. Justice Stevens, who is a Chicago native and practiced law in Chicago before his elevation to the bench, has been honored for his lifetime efforts to improve the system of justice and his active participation and dedication to The Chicago Bar Association.

The award that is given annually and is bestowed upon distinguished attorneys who exemplify Stevens’s commitment to integrity and public service in the practice of law. This year’s honorees included lawyers and judges from state court, federal court and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Justice Stevens has recently published one of his many books and this one is somewhat controversial but extremely well-written and provocative. It is titled,  Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The book is an excellent summary of not just of the Constitution, but the rigors required to revise the Constitution, which has been done only 18 times during the nation’s history — revisions to the Constitution as opposed to the 27 Amendments to it.

Continue reading

by

Leona Smith, the mother of Perry Powell, was appointed guardian of her son’s person but not his estate after a judge ruled that Powell was disabled because of severe mental disability. Powell’s father died, allegedly because of medical malpractice. Attorneys were hired by Smith, who then acted as special administrator of the decedent’s estate to litigate a wrongful-death claim for her deceased husband, Powell’s father.

The wrongful-death medical malpractice case was settled, but the lawyers who handled it failed to follow the requirements of Section 2.1 of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act.

Powell would have shared in the settlement proceeds, which exceeded $5,000. According to Section 2.1 of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, the probate court must be in charge of supervising the administration and distribution of those funds.

Continue reading

by

Attorneys should be aware that corporations can be deposed by authority of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 206. In Illinois, a deposition notice pursuant to that Supreme Court rule would require the corporate party or government entity to designate and produce for deposition a witness to give testimony at a discovery deposition on behalf of the corporation with respect to the facts set out in the notice of deposition. This would be the person most knowledgeable about the corporation and those relevant facts. The corporation would be obliged to produce one or more of its officers, directors, agents, employees or other persons who have knowledge on the subject matter of the inquiry.

The Illinois Supreme Court rule is similar to the Federal Rule 30(b)(6). A designated representative who gives testimony under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 206(a) may not be contradicted by any other corporate representative at trial. SCR 206(a)(1) also grants subpoena power to depose a corporate representative who is a non-party to the case. In the subpoena it should be explained what the subject matter of the deposition would be; what matters known are reasonably available to the corporation should be made available at the deposition.

The corporate representative’s testimony is binding on the company. Testimony given at a deposition may be considered a party admission that precludes the corporation or a party in the lawsuit from contesting the essential elements of its claims or defenses later on in the litigation. In some cases, the corporate representative with the most knowledge may be a former employee of the corporation, partnership or entity.

Continue reading

by

In a case lawyers usually refer to as a slip and fall matter, Virginia Bruns sued the City of Centralia when she fell on a raised section of a public sidewalk while going to an eye clinic.  The city’s records showed that the roots of a nearby tree caused the sidewalk to crack and another person had tripped at the same place. 

The eye clinic also had reported the condition to the City of Centralia and offered to remove the tree on its own.  The city’s tree committee refused the clinic’s offer due to the historic significance of the tree, even though the danger was open and obvious.  It was reasonably foreseeable that a patron of the clinic might be distracted while walking to the clinic. 

Under the circumstances, the question for the Illinois Supreme Court is whether the city’s alleged breach of its duty of reasonable care should have been a fact question to be determined by a jury. 

Continue reading