Bye bye love—No more heart balm (aka: heartburn) actionsBy Hon. Martin J. MengarelliTort Law, February 2018Causes of action for being left at the altar or for your spouse running off with someone else are gone. So what's a jilted person to do?
Ghosts of the past: Legal relics lurking in the civil justice systemBy Amelia S. Buragas & Laura CastagnaTort Law, November 2016The law is constantly changing to reflect our evolving notions of justice and fairness. However, sometimes artifacts of the past continue to find themselves firmly rooted in our civil justice system despite the fact that they reflect a bygone era or legal theories that have been abandoned. Here are some examples.
Serving a dissolved company: Isfan v. Longwood TowerBy Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Daniel BurleyCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2016How does a party serve a dissolved entity? It depends on whether the company is a limited liability entity or a corporation. The distinction is important, as improperly serving a dissolved entity can scuttle a case.
What does “shall” mean?By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2016The use of the word “shall” in a statute, apparently, is not dispositive of legislative intent, it seems.
Love means never having to say you’re sorryBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2015On July 21, 2015, the Governor signed Public Act 099-0090, creating an end to ‘heart balm’ actions and freeing the citizenry from actions for alienation of affections, breach of promise to marry, and criminal conversation.
The admissibility of prior convictions in civil proceedingsBy Thomas F. Tobin, IIITort Law, July 2015A summary of the requirements under Illinois evidence rules and Illinois case law for admitting prior convictions, and a look at the effect that the type of crime and the type of witness has on the admissibility of prior convictions.
Affidavits and claims of privilege—The final word for nowBy Hon. Eugene G. DohertyCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2013The following is Judge Eugene G. Doherty’s further reply to Mr. Balzer’s response from our October issue, which, absent new case law, will be our last word on this subject for a few months.
Does an affidavit really prove a privilege?By David J. BalzerBench and Bar, November 2013Unlike summary judgment motions and proving service on an individual, there is no Supreme Court Rule, Code of Civil Procedure section or Rule of Evidence carving out an exception that permits the use of an affidavit to prove a privilege. In other words, your opposing counsel has a decent argument that your affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. Ignoring this risks falling short of meeting your burden.
Follow-up on the articleBy Eugene G. Doherty & David J. BalzerBench and Bar, November 2013A reader's comments on the article, "Does an Affidavit Really Prove a Privilege,” and reaction to those comments from the article's author.
Prior consistent statements in trial practice: Can you use them?By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2013Our judges and juries are smart enough to figure out that the mere repetition of what a witness thinks is true, even on a repetitive basis, does not make it so.
Follow-up on September articleBy Eugene G. Doherty & David J. BalzerCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2013A reader's comments on the article, "Does an Affidavit Really Prove a Privilege,” and reaction to those comments from the article's author.
Does an affidavit really prove a privilege?By David J. BalzerCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2013Unlike summary judgment motions and proving service on an individual, there is no Supreme Court Rule, Code of Civil Procedure section or Rule of Evidence carving out an exception that permits the use of an affidavit to prove a privilege. In other words, your opposing counsel has a decent argument that your affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. Ignoring this risks falling short of meeting your burden.
Common-Law Doctrine trumps Fraudulent Transfer Act in holding decedent self-settlor to irrevocable pledgeBy George S. Bellas & A. Patrick AndesCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2013In Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the first district appellate court’s ruling in favor of a self-settled trust denying plaintiff Rush University Medical Center’s claim to a $1.5 million irrevocable pledge made by the settlor before he died, holding the trust was void as to existing and future creditors and Rush was entitled to the funds.
Does a corporation need a lawyer in state court?By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2012Unless you are in a small claims trial court, the Illinois maxim as to corporate representation is ambiguous.
A promise to pay expenses is inadmissible to prove liabilityBy Hon. Allen S. Goldberg & Rosezena PierceCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2012The holding in Lambert v. Coonrod means that even if the defendant makes a statement about his or her willingness to pay expenses arising out of an injury while liability is still being disputed, the plaintiff’s attorney cannot use this statement in court as an admission for the purpose of proving liability.
Railroad owed no duty to child trespasserBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Christina FaklisCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2012Along with playing with fire, drowning in water, and falling from heights, Illinois has now added moving trains to the list of obvious dangers that children should realize.
Standing to childrear: 2013By Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2012For now, standing to childrear in Illinois will be generally limited to biological and adoptive parents. But that may change soon with increasing calls for statutory reforms and precedents recognizing that children’s best interests, as well as societal and quasi-parental interests, should not automatically yield to superior parental rights seemingly waived without any judicial oversight.
False and fictitious names in pleadings: How much does it matter?By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2012The recent opinion of Rogasciano Santiago, a/k/a Juan Ortiz v. E. W. Bliss Company sheds some light, albeit little, on what we, as attorneys, must do when our clients fabricate their own identity, and then use that identity when filing litigation in our state trial courts.
Is a duty owed? Adjoining landowners, passers-by, falling limbs and treesBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2012The Appellate Court in Stackhouse v. Royce Realty and Management had little problem in assessing whether a tree falling on a person was reasonably foreseeable.
Does your claim allege educational malpractice?By Hon. James Fitzgerald Smith & Julia Illman ManessCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2012Does an injured person have a cognizable claim for negligence against a former teacher for an injury occurring after instruction that the injured person claims can be traced to poor teaching?
Lessons of Tunca v. PainterBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Nick J. MoellerCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2012The court opinion in Tunca v. Painter provides an important reminder of the importance of preserving the record and dismissed counts in cases where appellate review is sought.
Supreme court clarifies fraudulent misrepresentation pleading requirementsBy Sara SiegallCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2012Bonhomme v. St. James serves as an important reminder that practitioners should take care to preserve adverse rulings for appeal, and that the failure to take small, simple steps may lead to big and unfortunate consequences.
Hanks v. Cotler: An example of the “apogee of disingenuousness”By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Daniel J. BishopBench and Bar, June 2012Justice Terry Lavin’s opinion in Hanks v. Cotler constitutes an excellent play-by-play analysis of the intersection of the statutes of limitations and the statutes of repose with the common-law discovery rule.
Pre-trial issues in complex litigation: Court’s perspectiveBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2012This article recognizes some issues that may face both lawyers and judges in complex litigation, and explores some ways that the complex case may be approached to lessen confusion and problems.
