Our panel of leading appellate attorney's review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court in civil opinions Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison, Snyder v. Heidelberger, Genius v. County of Cook and criminal opinions People v. Ward, People v. White and People v. Hawkins.
Supreme Court Quick Takes
-
June 16, 2011 |
Practice News
-
June 3, 2011 |
Practice News
CIVIL
Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc.
By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC Advertisers beware: Illinois courts need not wait for the green light from the General Assembly to hear claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2000). Italia Foods, the class action plaintiff, alleged that the defendant travel agency sent Italia 28 unsolicited faxes advertising discount travel. Italia joined forces with other unhappy recipients to seek redress under the TCPA, which Congress enacted to address telemarketing abuses through the use of fax machines and other devices. After the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, it certified three questions for interlocutory review, but the supreme court focused primarily on the first question: whether the TCPA requires the state to enact enabling legislation before private TCPA claims can proceed in Illinois state courts. The supreme court found the statutory language, allowing private claims to proceed in state courts “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State,” to be ambiguous. Guided by a 2007 appellate decision and the Supremacy Clause, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that no state legislation was required. See U.S. Const., art. vi, cl. 2; First Capital Mortgage Corp. v. United Federal Bank, 374 Ill. App. 3d 739 (1st Dist. -
May 19, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday’s Supreme Court opinions from Civil cases General Motors v. Pappas, Auburn v. IDOR and Bell v. Hutsell and Criminal cases People v. Absher and People v. Marshall.
CIVIL
General Motors v. Pappas
-
May 6, 2011 |
Practice News
By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC
-
April 21, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review today’s Supreme Court opinions from Civil case Phoenix Insurance Company v. Rosen and Criminal cases People v. Mullins, People v. Martin and People v. Ziobro.
CIVIL
Phoenix Insurance Company v. Rosen
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. A provision in an underinsured-motorist policy allowing either party to reject an award over the statutory minimum for liability coverage does not violate public policy and is not unconscionable. Ms. Rosen was injured by an underinsured vehicle and made a claim under the underinsured-motorist provision of her Pheonix policy. The policy contained an arbitration agreement. However, the arbitration was binding only if the amount awarded did not exceed the minimum limit for bodily injury liability specified by the Illinois Safety Responsibility Law. If the amount exceeded that limit, either party could demand the right to a trial. Following arbitration, Rosen was awarded over $300,000 and Phoenix filed a complaint rejecting the award and demanding a jury trial. Rosen asserted in an affirmative defense that the “trial de novo” provision was invalid and unenforceable as against public policy. She also filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce the arbitration award. The trial court struck the affirmative defense and dismissed the counterclaim. On review, the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial de novo provision unfairly favored the insurer and violated public policy considerations favoring arbitration. The Supreme Court disagreed. It recognized the long tradition of upholding parties’ rights to freely contract. -
April 7, 2011 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court released one opinion today in the criminal case People v. Holmes.
CRIMINAL
People v. Holmes
By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender Defendant, an Indiana resident with a valid Indiana handgun permit, was charged with two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW): one count for carrying an "uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible" firearm in his vehicle, and the other for carrying a firearm in his vehicle without having been issued a currently valid FOID Card. The charges arose out of a traffic stop in Chicago, where police found a handgun in the armrest of the backseat of defendant's vehicle. That armrest was closed and latched at the time. The gun was unloaded, although the clip was in defendant's pocket. Under the Court's recent decision in Diggins, 235 Ill. 2d 48 (2009) (holding that a vehicle's center console is a case), defendant's conviction under the first count could not stand because the backseat armest fell wtihin the meaning of a "case" under the statute. There was no dispute that the armrest was closed and latched, and thus the gun was enclosed in a case. As to the second count, the Court concluded that the AUUW statute must be read in conjunction with the FOID Card Act to determine whether defendant was exempt from having a valid FOID Card because he had a valid Indiana handgun permit. -
March 24, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday’s Supreme Court opinions from Civil cases Williams v. The Board of Review, Goodman v. Ward, Barber v. American Airlines, Inc., Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, Vincent v. Alden-Park Strathmoor, and Criminal cases People v. Bartlet, People v. Alcozer, People v. Phillips, People v. Almore, People v. Madrigal and Hill v. Walker.
-
February 25, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review today's Supreme Court opinions from Civil cases Speed District 802 v. Warning, Ries v. The City of Chicago, Johnston v. Weil, Kaufman v. Schroeder, M.D., LaSalle Bank National Association v. Cypress Creek 1, and Criminal cases People v. Baez and People v. Comage.
CIVIL
Speed District 802 v. Warning
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. The reviewing courts have struggled with this case, resulting in a divided Illinois Supreme Court reversing the (divided) appellate court judgment and setting aside a decision of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (“the Board”). At issue was whether the SPEED District 802 (“the District”) violated two sections of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) when it failed to renew the teaching contract of Warning, who was a nontenured probationary teacher. -
February 3, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review today's opinions in the civil case Carr v. Gateway, Inc. and criminal cases People v. Skryd, People v. Beauchamp and People v. Manning.
-
January 21, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in in civil cases Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services v. Wiszowaty, First American Bank v. Henry, Thompson v. Gordon, Uldrych v. VHS of Illinois, and criminal cases People v. Alsup, People v. Kitch, People v. Gonzalez, People v. Williams, People v. King, People v. Garcia and People v. Lindsay.