“Tactical gamesmanship” and trial practice: Can it be good advocacy?By Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2008Playing by the rules applies to each party regardless of whether they are on opposite sides of the aisle. If it becomes otherwise, the keystone of those rules will be undermined, thereby making the trial process an also-ran and other than what all litigants, or their counsel, expect.
Trial court erred in allowing defendant to withdraw rejection of arbitration awardBy John J. HolevasCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2008The Second District Appellate Court recently reversed a lower court’s decision in Stemple v. Pickerill, which allowed the defendant to withdraw his rejection of an arbitration award made pursuant to the court annexed mandatory arbitration program, while denying the plaintiffs from filing their own rejection of such an award.
Impropriety of the “otherwise careless and negligent” allegationBy Anthony LongoTort Law, March 2008This article will explain why defense counsel should move to strike this allegation rather than answering it with a general denial. The article will conclude with a form motion to strike that defense counsel can use to try for dismissal of the allegation.
Motions attacking motions: A plea to end the violenceBy Anthony LongoCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2008The author suggests that next time we are vexed by another party’s motion, we should remember IRMO Sutherland and Wolff and resist the urge to move to strike or dismiss. Such a motion is a nullity and unnecessarily clogs the motion calendars of the circuit court.
New tort theory approved by Illinois Supreme CourtBy Raymond A. FylstraCorporate Law Departments, June 2007In Forsyth v. Clark USA, the Illinois Supreme Court held that “direct participation liability” against corporate shareholders is a valid theory of recovery.
Landowners may have more duties to the public than they thinkBy Yvonne M. O’ConnorTort Law, March 2007The case of Marshall v. Burger King involved a negligence action brought by the estate of Detroy Marshall III, who was killed while eating at a Burger King restaurant when a car crashed through the wall of the restaurant.
The “empty chair” defense at trialBy Steven G. PietrickCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2007It is common for defense attorneys to speak of pointing to an “empty chair” at trial in order to shift the responsibility from their client to another entity which is not a party in the case.
Insurance companies beware: Documents normally privileged may be discoverableBy D.J. EvansCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2005The Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Western States Insurance Co. v. O’Hara places greater responsibility on insurance companies to deal fully and fairly with their insureds and third parties in response to discovery requests.
Open & obvious—Or have you forgotten?By Karen McNulty Enright & Ruth DegnanTort Law, November 2005The First District Appellate Court recently provided an instructive and comprehensive decision on the distraction exception to the open and obvious doctrine in Clifford v. Wharton Business Group.
Defense surveillance video of plaintiff ruled inadmissibleBy Stephen G. BaimeTort Law, March 2005A recent decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, is of great importance to lawyers representing either party in personal injury and workers' compensation litigation.
Personal Jurisdiction.com: How much “interactivity” is enough?By Kris R. MurphyCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2004Is a company which maintains Internet web pages which are accessible in Illinois, but has few or no other contacts with the State, "transacting business" in Illinois such that an Illinois court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over it?
Is an adverse action necessary to state a retaliation claim?By Shari R. RhodeFederal Civil Practice, May 2004Burwell v. Pekin High School (Central District, Case No. 00-2 111), now on appeal to the 7th Circuit, is a Title IX sexual harassment and retaliation case brought by a senior at Pekin High School.
Subsequent remedial measure—An updateBy John M. StalmackTort Law, April 2004Evidence of a subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence on the part of any person being charged with negligent conduct.
Senior judgingBy Milton ShadurFederal Civil Practice, March 2004Senior status" for the federal judge is a label that covers a multitude of sins-at least as long as the sins don't collide with the constitutional guaranty that provides judges with tenure only "during good behavior."
Cases of noteBy Richard Posner, Alfred M. Swanson, Jr., George S. Miller, Barbara Crowder, Michael Kiley, Philip Lading, & J.A. SebastianBench and Bar, January 2004Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 01 C 6329-Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.
Illinois General Assembly regulates health care liensBy Richard L. TurnerCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2003Illinois law allows a wide range of medical service providers to impress a lien on the proceeds of a personal injury award or settlement.
Landeros and the use of affidavits in the resolution of motions for summary judgmentBy Russell W. HartiganCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2003Affidavits have long played an important role in civil litigation. In Landeros v. Equity Property and Development, the appellate court of Illinois has confirmed that lawyers must comply with the applicable rules of civil procedure in preparing affidavits for use in opposing a motion for summary judgment.
Section 414 of the restatement (second) of torts revisitedBy James P. GinzkeyTort Law, January 2003This article is a supplement to an excellent article by Larry Appelbaum appearing in the November 2000 issue of Tort Trends, Vol. 36, No. 2
Service of process by special order of courtBy Dawn R. HallstenCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2002Under 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1, a plaintiff may seek leave of the court to serve the defendant by special order of court if the plaintiff has diligently but unsuccessfully attempted to serve the defendant personally or by abode service.
Amendments to federal rules of civil procedureBy Dawn R. HallstenGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, February 2001This update on the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is for general practitioners who do not deal extensively with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but do want to be informed about the amendments.
Recent appellate court opinions in briefBy Alfred M. Swanson, Jr.Bench and Bar, October 2000What level of investigation is required to defeat an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel?
Special interrogatory—the silver bulletBy Robert H. HanafordCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2000Anyone who has had a verdict torpedoed by a special interrogatory can attest to the dangerousness, or effectiveness, of this trial tool
Using 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1 service by special order of courtBy Dawn R. HallstenGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, November 1999When a defendant attempts to evade service or a defendant moves without a forwarding address and cannot be located, a plaintiff has the option to move for leave to serve the defendant under section 203.1.
