Section Newsletters

Articles From Misty J. Cygan

Say goodbye to boilerplate objections and responses to discovery requests By George S. Bellas & Misty J. Cygan Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2017 For many attorneys and law firms it is standard practice to object to most, if not all, discovery requests with the boilerplate language that a request is overly broad or unduly burdensome. This practice necessitates more meet and confer conferences and motions to compel resulting additional costs to litigate. The 2015 amendments to Rule 34 were intended to curtail this type of practice. However, up until recently judges have been dillydallying in enforcing the new rule.
1 comment (Most recent May 3, 2017)
A defamation action under Rule 224 is not afforded First Amendment protections so long as the ‘necessity’ requirement is met By George S. Bellas & Misty J. Cygan Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2015 Rule 224 should be utilized to obtain the identity of an online user for defamation claims. However, the action will only survive if the allegations pass muster under the standard for section 2-615.
The concept of “inherent power” does not divest a circuit court of its jurisdiction By George S. Bellas & Misty J. Cygan Bench and Bar, May 2015 In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Matthew Trice, the Illinois Supreme Court held that LVNV’s failure to register as a collection agency under the Collection Agency Act did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction.
The concept of “inherent power” does not divest a circuit court of its jurisdiction By George S. Bellas & Misty J. Cygan Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2015 In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Matthew Trice, the Illinois Supreme Court held that LVNV’s failure to register as a collection agency under the Collection Agency Act did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction.
Developments in piercing the corporate veil By George S. Bellas & Misty J. Cygan Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2014 In Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469, the appellate court clarified a somewhat confusing area of law—veil-piercing—in its reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author