"As advocates fearful of court rebuke or sanction, Illinois lawyers normally play by the procedural rules, not citing Rule 23 orders even when such an order would be helpful to their case." So writes Robert T. Park in the latest issue of Trial Briefs, newsletter of the ISBA Civil Practice & Procedure Section.

So what about In re Estate of LaPlume? There, Park writes, the appellate court cited a Rule 23 order while "carefully stating that it was not relying on that order as precedent but still quoting from it and using its holding to bolster the correctness of its disposition of the case before it."

Park sees LaPlume as more support for the argument that Rule 23 be amended. "There is no sound reason why a litigant or judge can cite a federal trial court decisions from North Dakota or Alaska, as found in West’s Federal Supplement, or any sister state’s appellate decisions but is not allowed to cite an Illinois Rule 23 appellate order, even one that is on point and potentially dispositive." Read his article.