By Robert L. Fogel, Michael S. Young, & Katie M. King
May
2010
Article
, Page 244
A look at the trial lawyer's fiduciary and ethical responsibility to disclose, monitor, and control reimbursable case expenses incurred on behalf of clients.
On July 24, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, holding that the trial court did not err when it deferred ruling on the defendant’s motion in limine until after he testified.
On July 27, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County and remanded the case for a bench trial.
Thanks to an amendment to supreme court rule 103(b), plaintiffs who haven’t been otherwise diligent in moving a case along must be especially diligent in obtaining service.
A controversial new case from the Illinois Supreme Court bars the refiling of a voluntarily dismissed claim when a partially dispositive motion has been granted.
On December 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon interstate forum non conveniens.
On December 28, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the holding of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
In Bell Atlantic, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a new federal pleading standard. But its impact on federal pleading practice in Illinois is unclear.
On December 13, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and the Circuit Court of Knox County, holding the passage of time between a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal and refiling is not included in considering the plaintiff's diligence under Supreme Court Rule 103(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.
What can you do to preserve your client's right to appeal when the trial court issues an order of ambiguous finality? The Waddick case may provide some lessons.
