The Illinois Supreme Court handed down one opinion on Thursday, April 4. In Piccioli v. The Board of Trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System et al., the court ruled that a union lobbyist qualified for a public pension under a repealed law by spending one day as a substitute teacher.
Piccioli v. The Board of Trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System et al.
By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down opinions in six cases on Thursday, March 21. In People v. Webb, the court held that the unlawful use of weapons statute that provides that it is unlawful to possess or carry a stun gun in public is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and in People v. Drake, remanded a defendant’s appealed aggravated battery conviction to the circuit court for a retrial. In City of Chicago v. City of Kankakee, the court held that the Illinois Department of Revenue has the exclusive authority to audit disputed sales transactions and to distribute or redistribute resulting tax revenues due to any error. In 1550 MP Road LLC v. Teamsters Local Union No. 700, the court held that a union’s lease and purchase agreement that was in violation of the Property of Unincorporated Associations Act and the union’s bylaws was unenforceable. The court issued three opinions in Wingert v. Hradisky. In Van Dyke v. White, the court addressed whether the Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department has the authority to bring an administrative action against someone also subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down one opinion on Friday, February 22. In Edwards v. Atterberry, the court denied a petitioner’s motion for a supervisory order but allowed him leave to file a complaint for writ of prohibition.
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
It is not very often that a group of appellate attorneys has difficulty determining whether an Illinois Supreme Court case is criminal or civil in nature. Edwards v. Atterberry, 2019 IL 123370, however, is such a case. After a jury found Edwards guilty of violating the Timber Buyers Licensing Act, a section of the Professions, Occupations and Business Operations Act (225 ILCS 735/1, et seq. (2016)), he filed a motion for supervisory order and for leave to file a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit Judge Atterberry from conducting a sentencing hearing or from taking any other action in the underlying criminal case. Edwards claimed that because he was charged with violating regulations rather than a statute defining a criminal offense, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The supreme court denied the motion for a supervisory order but allowed Edwards leave to file a complaint for writ of prohibition.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down two opinions on Thursday, Feb. 7. In Beaman v. Freesmeyer, the court clarified the proper test for the “commencement or continuance” prong of the tort of malicious prosecution. In People v. Gawlak, the court reversed the appellate court’s decision in a case involving due process rights and the assistance of counsel.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down eight opinions on Friday, Jan. 25. In People v. Witherspoon, the court considered whether a person who enters another person’s home in violation of a court order thereby enters “without authority” under the home invasion statute. In People v. Johnson, the supreme court concluded that the appellate court erred in considering the merits of a man’s sentencing challenge because he could not challenge it other than through withdrawal of his plea. The court ruled that a defendant was required to offer some affirmative evidence that the parking lot where he was arrested for DUI was not a public highway in People v. Relwani. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., the court ruled that consumers do not have to demonstrate “injury or adverse effect” to sue companies under the state’s biometric privacy law. The supreme court upheld a trial court’s ruling granting a father who had joint custody of his children to relocate in In re Marriage of Fatkin and clarified the rules governing the admission of photographs in motor vehicle cases in Peach v. McGovern. In In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, the court rejected arguments by the Better Government Association to release documents in a FOIA request. In Smith v. The Vanguard Group, the court determined that a man did not violate an injunction when he changed the beneficiary designation from his wife to his sons.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down four opinions on Friday, Dec. 28. In Sienna Court Condominium Ass'n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., the court addressed the question of whether a purchaser of a newly constructed home could assert a claim for breach of an implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor that had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. In Stanphill v. Ortberg, the court reviewed a jury verdict hinging on the foreseeability of a depressed person’s suicide. The court considered whether five monetary charges were fines or fees in People v. Clark and determined there was no probable cause to execute a search warrant in People v. Manzo.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down two opinions on Thursday, Dec. 13. The court weighed in on whether section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to voluntarily withdrawn postconviction petitions in People v. Simms, and in Palm v. Holocker, demonstrated the principle that a party seeking review of a statutory construction ruling must bring to the court a case with facts that implicate the statute being construed.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down nine opinions on Thursday, Nov. 29. The court determined that amendments to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) do not apply retroactively in People v. Easton, confronted whether a defendant who is able to retain counsel to prepare and file his post-conviction petition is entitled to any guaranteed level of assistance from that counsel in People v. Johnson, and articulated the contours of “waiver by conduct” in regard to appointed counsel for post-conviction petitions in People v. Lesley. The supreme court also determined that two corporate defendants were both liable in tort and their relative culpability was equal in Sperl v. Henry, opined that “transactional test” for res judicata should also be applied to the separate doctrine of the single refiling rule to determine whether two or more lawsuits assert the same cause of action in First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, and held that an injured worker was barred from intervening in her employer’s subrogation action brought against third-party tortfeasors in A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co. The supreme court also weighed in on statutory changes to the Illinois Pension Code and their impacts upon affected employees in Carmichael v. Laborers & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, discussed the court’s jurisdiction, supervisory authority, and the framework for a circuit court to address the constitutionality of an Illinois statute in Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., and addressed judicial review of executive power in Gregg v. Rauner.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down one opinion on Thursday, Nov. 1. The supreme court upheld the dismissal of a man’s post-conviction petition in an armed robbery case.
By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender
Torrence DuPree was charged with, and convicted of, two counts of armed robbery for an incident in 2010. Evidence at trial was that two men drove to an apartment complex to sell marijuana to a third. During the transaction, a hooded man approached the seller’s vehicle, displayed a weapon, and took money and a backpack. No physical evidence linked DuPree to the offense, but the prosepective marijuana purchaser identified him as the offender. Also, one of the vehicle’s occupants identified DuPree in a photo array, stating that he was 70 percent certain of the identification. That witness also described the offender as being at least 6 feet tall, but DuPree was only 5 feet, 8 inches tall. The vehicle’s driver did not testify at trial.
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down seven opinions on Thursday, October 18. The court affirmed that the warrantless use of a drug-detection dog at a man’s apartment door violated his Fourth Amendment rights in People v. Bonilla, reversed the appellate court’s judgment vacating a man’s sentences and remanding for resentencing for a murder conviction in People v. Harris, upheld a circuit court’s decision to seal two motions filed by a defendant facing murder charges in People v. Zimmerman, and affirmed a defendant’s conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church in People v. Newton. The supreme court also reversed a circuit court’s decision to dismiss eminent domain complaints against landowners in Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois v. Hutchings, considered the meaning of the phrase “unable to satisfy any judgment” in Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC, and affirmed a circuit court’s order dismissing claims against an insurance company in American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Krop.