Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the Civil cases Jane Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors and Santiago v. E.W. Bliss Company.

Jane Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the Civil case Harris v. Thompson and the Criminal case People v. Hollins.

CIVIL

Harris v. Thompson

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.

The interplay between the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”) divided the Court in Harris v. Thompson.

The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with a Massac County ambulance. He sued the County defendants for negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss and, following an adverse jury verdict, moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, asserting that they were immune from liability based on negligence pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. That Act provides that a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle when responding to an emergency call. The trial court denied the motions and the Appellate Court (Fifth District) affirmed. Those courts found that the Illinois Vehicle Code, which imposes a duty to refrain from negligence, is the more specific statute and supersedes the Tort Immunity Act.   

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Clemons, People v. Hunt, People v. Dominguez and People v. Edwards.

People v. Clemons

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

At first blush, it seems a simple axiom: the punishment should fit the crime. Figuring out when a penalty is disproportionate to the offense, however, has long been a thorny issue, particularly because the Legislature has adopted several overlapping provisions that enhance the length of sentences based on the involvement of firearms in offenses.  As a result, criminal defendants frequently argue that their punishment violates  the proportionate penalties clause of the Constitution where they receive a sentence that exceeds the range of sentences applied to other cases that are identical to the offense of which they were convicted. In 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court held that "common sense and sound logic dictate that the penalties for identical offenses should be identical."  People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63. Thus, In Hauschild, the Supreme Court held that "the sentence for armed robbery while armed with a firearm violates the proportionate penalties clause because the penalty for that offense is more severe than the penalty for the identical offense of armed violence predicated on robbery with a category I or category II weapon.” Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 87.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Simpkins v. CSX Transportation and Wisnasky-Bettorf v. Pierce and criminal cases People v. Chapman and People v. Cathey.