A recent ruling explains when employer-defendants can and cannot get access to employee-plaintiffs' medical and psychological records when employees sue for emotional distress cause by illegal discrimination.
The supreme court ruled that a $1 million-plus penalty for an employer’s failure to timely pay a $12,000-plus child support obligation was not unconstitutional on the facts.
Your client’s ex-husband, who moved to Texas and had custody of the children, dies. Your client wants the kids, her ex’s Texas relatives say no. What do you do?
Under the rule, A’s promise to pay B’s debt is enforceable even if A didn’t put it in writing if it’s made before the debt was incurred. The high court says that’s not the law in Illinois.
It’s good to allow trustees to terminate small trusts when fees are consuming income. But should income, rather than remainder, beneficiaries automatically get the proceeds?
May an agent or guardian shift the principal's assets for Medicaid planning purposes after the principal has become disabled? Yes - but doing so can be expensive.
The Illinois Supreme Court rules that a Frye hearing must be held to decide whether the horizontal gaze nystagmus test reliably indicates alcohol impairment.
The court reaffirms the rule that Party A has no duty to warn Party B about a threat posed by Party C unless there's a special relationship between A and B.
With its Vision Point ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court gives trial courts the power to allow late or otherwise deficient answers to Rule 216 requests to admit.
For juveniles who break the law, "station adjustments" can mete punishment without creating a criminal record. Here's how to help clients make the most of the opportunity.
The third district upheld a ruling requiring an obligor to pay 60 percent of his income to pay off a child-support/maintenance arrearage totaling more that $200,000.
Complainants under the Illinois Human Rights Act can now file in circuit court instead of with state agencies. This brings Illinois into line with federal practice and that of 38 states.
In Ledbetter, the Supreme Court rules that Title VII's filing deadline bars employment discrimination claims based on decisions that occurred outside the limitations period, even if the employee's current pay is lower because of the decisions.