Razor v Hyundai Motor America changed Illinois law by limiting the failure of a remedy to the remedy itself and not implicating the limitation on damages.
Illinois becomes the 24th state to allow wrongful-death plaintiffs to recover for their grief, sorrow, and mental suffering at the loss of their loved one.
Two districts of the appellate court construe Arthur v Catour, holding that plaintiffs can recover only what Medicare and Medicaid paid the provider - not the larger, undiscounted amount billed - and allowing a physician's expert testimony that a medical bill was reasonable.
The land surveyor made a mistake - what are the damages? The defenses? Who can recover? This article explores those questions from the plaintiffs' and defense perspectives.
The suit, filed in Cook County, argues that the statute violates the separation of powers, is impermissible special legislation, and suffers from other constitutional infirmities.
Successful legal malpractice plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages they would have once but for the defendant lawyers' malpractice, the high court ruled earlier this summer.
On September 26, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County dis-missing the plaintiff-homeowners' architectural malpractice action against the architect and architectural firm.
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the third district's ruling that personal injury defendants may be liable for a plaintiff's original medical bill, not the lower amount negotiated by his or her insurer.
The third district appellate court ruled early this year that a plaintiff is entitled to the amount of a hospital's undiscounted bill, not a lower amount negotiated by the plaintiff's insurance carrier.
On March 2, 2004, the Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jasper County, entering an additur for the plaintiff's claimed medical expenses and affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff motorist.
Employers (excluding governmental entities) are now prohibited from making, adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation or policy that prevents an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency if that employee reasonably believes the information discloses a violation of a state or federal law.
Some damage-award recipients don't act wisely when trading in their structured settlements for lump-sum payouts. A new law helps courts say "no" to bad deals.
On March 20, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not maintain her negligence action against a second defendant after she had already collected full damages from a first defendant.
On November 21, 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the appellate court properly applied § 2-1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.
When the Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs can be compensated for the risk of future injury, it departed from precedent and followed the trend.
