Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire and In re of Marriage of Donald B. and the criminal cases In re Brandon P., People v. Stahl and People v. Stoecker. The court also released In re Commitment of Fields, In re Rita P., People v. Bingham, WISAM 1, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission and Nelson v. The County of Kendall.
Illinois Supreme Court
-
May 22, 2014 |
Practice News
-
May 19, 2014 |
Practice News
The Supreme Court of Illinois announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on May 16, 2014, during the May Term of Court. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.
-
April 2, 2014 |
Practice News
In a recent ruling that inspired a strongly worded dissent, the Illinois Supreme Court held that police did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights by searching a small piece of luggage by his side after he was arrested and handcuffed on a civil warrant for failure to pay child support. Find out what search-and-seizure scholars say about the ruling in the April Illinois Bar Journal.
-
March 24, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee will seek comment at a public hearing Friday, April 4 in Chicago on a proposed change to address the scope of electronically stored information, limitations on its use, production, and how such information is managed.
Proposal 14-01 is presented in the form of amendments to Supreme Court Rules 201, 204, 214, 216, 218 and 219. A copy of this and other proposals are available on the Supreme Court website at: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Public_Hearings/Rules/default.asp
1 comment (Most recent March 28, 2014) -
March 22, 2014 |
Practice News
Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and the Illinois Supreme Court have given approval to a comprehensive analysis of the Cook County pretrial services program, statutorily established to provide guidance to judges setting bond for felony and misdemeanor defendants.
The report identifies systemic shortcomings in areas of echnology, automation, leadership, and management. It said the pretrial services operation also lacks the authenticity of verified reports on defendants. As a result, the program has fallen into disuse by judges, prosecutors, public defenders and the sheriff's office in setting bond or determining eligibility for electronic monitoring devices.
-
March 21, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court has announced changes to Supreme Court Rules 361, 381, and 383 dealing with where attorneys or parties file motions with the Court.
If a case arises out of the Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Judicial Districts and is a motion to be heard by the full Court, an original and eight copies shall be filed with the Clerk's office in Springfield. If the mo-tion may be heard by a single Justice, an original and one copy shall be filed with the Clerk's office in Springfield, directed to the Justice from the Judicial District where the case originated. Responses to mo-tions shall be filed within the allowed time frames in the same manner along with the requisite copies.
In cases arising out of the First Judicial District (Cook County), motions for a single Justice will continue to be filed, along with one copy, in the Clerk's satellite office in Chicago. If the motion in a case from the First District is a matter for the full Court, the changes require an original and eight copies to be filed with the Clerk's Chicago office. Responses to motions shall be filed within the allowed timeframes in the same manner along with the requisite copies.
This applies whether motions and responses are filed electronically or not.
-
March 20, 2014 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Clark, People v. Melongo, People v. Fernandez, People v. Easley, People v. Davis and People v. Cummings. In People v. Clark and People v. Melongo the Court unanimously held that the current eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional.
People v. Clark and People v. Melongo
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
-
March 20, 2014 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court civil opinions in the civil cases BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, In re Marriage of Tiballi, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Carlson and Home Star Bank and Financial Services, etc. v. Emergency Care and Health Organization, Ltd.
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell
By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa
In the context of a motion attacking foreclosure proceedings for lack of proper service filed after confirmation of the report of sale, BAC Home Loans Servicing v. Mitchell “reaffirms the longstanding rule that ‘a party who submits to the court’s jurisdiction does so only prospectively and the appearance does not retroactively validate orders entered prior to that date.’” The court resolved a conflict among appellate panels on the issue of whether a waiver of personal jurisdiction operated prospectively only, or whether it served to retroactively validate previous orders of the court entered without personal jurisdiction.
The source of the controversy is the amendment of section 2-301 in 2000 which both eliminated the need for a special appearance and specified the manner of objecting to a court’s jurisdiction. The court held that in context the amendment was ambiguous, and should therefore not be interpreted to contradict In re Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill.2d 542 (1989), which applied the prospectively-only rule.
1 comment (Most recent March 21, 2014) -
March 17, 2014 |
Practice News
The Supreme Court of Illinois announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on March 14, 2014, during the March Term of Court. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.
-
March 13, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court announced Thursday the appointment of Chief Circuit Judge S. Gene Schwarm to the Appellate Court in the Fifth Judicial District. Chief Judge Schwarm will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Appellate Justice James M. Wexstten, effective January 29, 2014.
The appointment is effective April 1, 2014 and will expire December 5, 2016, when the position will be filled by the winner of the 2016 General Election
“I am honored to be selected to fill the vacancy in the Fifth District Appellate Court," Chief Judge Schwarm said. "My humble thanks go to Justice Lloyd Karmeier and the Supreme Court for giving me this opportunity.
"I am especially pleased to follow retiring Justice Jim Wexstten, an outstanding jurist and colleague."