Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Jose Adame paid $145,000 for a house that was being sold by joint tenants, Arnold and Arthur Lynch. There was a problem with the warranty deed that Arnold signed in June 2005.

In 2002, Arnold was in a coma following a car accident. The judge appointed James Brya as plenary guardian of Arnold’s estate and person. Arnold eventually regained consciousness. But the guardianship was never canceled. This meant that the warranty deed signed by Arnold, who was still under the court’s guardianship orders, was invalid or void.

Arnold died intestate ten months after the closing, leaving Arthur as the sole heir. In 2009, the Cook County public guardian was appointed as plenary protector of Arthur’s estate and person.

Continue reading

by

There’s a big difference in requiring a photo ID to board an airplane and the right to vote.  Voting in America is a precious right; eligibility is established in the United States Constitution, its amendments, by state laws and by various acts of Congress. Because the Constitution does not have particular language on voting except for the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), the Fifteen Amendment (1870) , the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), the Twenty-Fourth Amendment  (1964) and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971), the states have wide discretion to establish the legal qualifications for voting.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a very hard-fought law that sought to end the decades of Jim Crow voting restrictions of African-Americans living in the South particularly. In 1964 fewer than half of all registered African-Americans living in the Jim Crow South were eligible to vote. Now 70% of African-Americans are registered to vote. About 65% of registered African-Americans voted in the last two presidential elections.

Even those statistics, being promising, are under a vicious attack in an effort to restrict voting. It is no  surprise that most of the states that have recently passed onerous voting restrictions have governments that are overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans. There are easily accessible videos to view in which state legislators in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the Deep South have candidly said out loud that with voting restriction laws in place — laws shortening voter registration dates and times, laws eliminating or drastically curtailing early voting — African-Americans, Hispanics and persons of color, the disabled and the poor will not have the ability to cast votes.  The poorly hidden purpose of the voting restrictions is clear — to limit those who are more likely to vote Democrat.

Continue reading

by

A motorcyclist was riding behind a car driven by the defendant who was a car dealership employee. The defendant driver suddenly made a U-turn, causing the motorcyclist to catapult over the car’s hood.

The plaintiff motorcyclist suffered multiple fractures, including a wrist fracture that required surgery.

The medical expenses for the motorcyclist were $55,000. He was an automotive technician but is now unable to return to his job. He had been earning about $60,000 per year.

Continue reading

by

About 1,000 prison inmates, some of whom have been in prison for more than 50 years for murders they committed as teenagers, may get a chance to be free.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Henry Montgomery, who has been in prison for more than 50 years for killing a sheriff’s deputy in Baton Rouge, La., in 1963. Montgomery was then just 17 years old and was playing hooky from school when he encountered Deputy Charles Hurt. Hurt was a truant officer. Panicked, Henry pulled a gun from his pocket and fatally shot Hurt.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said, “Prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.”

Continue reading

by

Russell Sheaffer was a graduate film student at Indiana University. He was in California making a documentary and was driving in moderate stop-and-go traffic on a freeway. As he was stopped in the line of traffic, Thomas Mose, driving a tanker truck for NuCO2, rear-ended a vehicle two cars behind Sheaffer’s while traveling at about 25 mph. A chain-reaction impact occurred. The car behind Sheaffer’s rear-ended his car causing his seat to break. His car was then propelled into the SUV in front of him.

Sheaffer suffered multiple skull and facial fractures, including fractures to his jaw and sinus, and a traumatic brain injury. He underwent open reduction internal fixation of the jaw, and his jaw was wired shut for 8 weeks. The trauma and fractures caused Sheaffer to develop ischemic bone disease, osteoarthritis of the jaw, and deterioration and degeneration of the condyles and mandible. A condyle is the smooth surface area at the end of the bone forming a part of a joint. His past medical expenses totaled $141,900.

Sheaffer continues to suffer from chronic pain and he will require additional surgeries and therapies to treat jaw pain and other problems. In addition, the brain injury has adversely affected his memory and his ability to cope with his jaw injuries. Sheaffer still plans a career in filmmaking, but he is no longer able to function at the level he was accustomed to before this crash.

Continue reading

by

In a divided opinion, Illinois law on negligence still requires proof of physical impact in “direct victim” emotional distress cases. There was a strong dissent written by Justice Sheldon A. Harris.

In this case, Melinda Schweihs lost her mortgage foreclosure case and was packing to move out of her Northbrook home when two subcontractors of Safeguard Properties Inc. mistakenly concluded that the property had been abandoned. Her car was parked in the driveway. The men broke into the house to implement an “initial secure order.”

The unexpected confrontation with the intruders supposedly scared Schweihs. She brought a lawsuit against Chase Home Finance, Safeguard and the subcontractors, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading

by

Under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, a minor who is under 13 at the time of the commission of a serious crime must be represented by counsel during the entire custodial interrogation. 705 ILCS 405/5-170(a). When the minor under 13 is in custody, Miranda warnings are not necessary. The law requires that the police provide the juvenile with a lawyer.

A juvenile who is one day shy of 13 gets an automatic lawyer, yet a juvenile who is just one day older must navigate the Miranda warnings in the same way as a sophisticated adult would be required to do.

Surprisingly, statistics show that 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights. That would apply to the juveniles 13 and over. In one recent Illinois Supreme Court case, a police officer questioned a suspect in his home concerning a possible murder. The police officer who did the interrogation was not in uniform. He did have a revolver in plain sight.

Continue reading

by

A federal judge in Seattle threw out a $21.5 million jury verdict that was entered in favor of an Illinois man who claimed he was injured during an around-the-world cruise in 2011. The jury’s verdict was thrown out when the individual’s former assistant came forward to say that he had intentionally deleted e-mails that could have hurt the man’s case.

The federal district court judge ordered a new trial saying that she found the assistant’s testimony at a hearing last month credible and that newly uncovered e-mails exposed “grave inconsistencies” with the injured Illinois resident, James R. Hausman’s story.

He lives in Springfield, Ill. He sued Seattle-based Holland America Line, the cruise line company, in 2013. Hausman claimed that he suffered dizziness and seizures after an automatic sliding glass door improperly closed and struck his head as the ship approached its port in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Continue reading

by

The law firm of Williams, Bax & Saltzman P.C. represented Cole Goesel and his parents in a personal injury lawsuit that settled before trial. Because Cole was a minor, the law firm needed judicial approval to finalize the settlement. The parties’ contingent-fee agreement entitled the law firm to one-third of the gross settlement, while all litigation expenses would be covered by the Goesels’ share.

The U.S. District Court judge refused to approve the settlement unless litigation expenses were deducted off the top and one-third of the net settlement was allocated to the firm. The judge also rejected the firm’s attempt to count the cost of computerized legal research as a separately compensable litigation expense rather than rolling it into the fee recovery. The law firm appealed the judge’s order limiting its fees. The Goesels declined to participate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court judge’s decision. The appeals panel stated that although the district court enjoys substantial discretion to safeguard the interests of minors in the settlement of litigation, this discretion is not boundless. In this instance, the trial judge criticized aspects of the firm’s contingent-fee agreement that have received the expressed blessing of Illinois courts. The trial judge’s analysis of what the Goesels would receive, that being 51% of the gross settlement amount rather than 42%, was insufficient to justify discarding a reasonable contingent-fee agreement.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed the dismissal of a 42-count fourth amended complaint for damages arising from an automobile accident in December 2009. The case involved injuries to the wife and son of Nicholas Skridla — Margaret and Maxamillian. The appeal pertains only to the claim of spoliation of evidence against defendant Auto Owners Insurance Co. (Auto Owners). The claims against Auto Owners were added in the fourth amended complaint when Auto Owners was joined as a defendant. The other counts of this product-liability and personal-injury action remained pending in the trial court in Winnebago County, Ill.

The plaintiff alleges that the trial court was wrong in dismissing the spoliation counts with prejudice pursuant to Section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to establish that Auto Owners owed plaintiff a duty to preserve the evidence at issue.

Auto Owners argued that the dismissal was proper under Section 2-615 and also maintains that the spoliation count should have been dismissed pursuant to Section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619) for the additional reason that they were untimely, as Auto Owners argued in its combined Section 2-619.1 motion. Auto Owners argued that the spoliation counts were statutorily time-barred.

Continue reading