Supreme court rules and custody: A summaryBy Hon. Barbara CrowderBench and Bar, June 2006The Supreme Court has established new rules that will dramatically change—and hopefully improve—custody and visitation procedures and outcomes.
Minimum continuing legal education and the Commission on ProfessionalismBy Laurence F. JohnsonReal Estate Law, February 2006In order to assure the public that attorneys licensed to practice in Illinois “remain current regarding the requisite knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill the professional responsibility and obligations of their respective practices and thereby improve the standards of the profession,” the Supreme Court of Illinois entered an order September 29, 2005, as amended on December 6, 2005, requiring attorneys who practice law in Illinois to obtain Minimum Continuing Legal Education (“MCLE”) and creating a board (the “Board”) to administer the new requirements.
Rule 222—A ticking time bombBy Robert FinkTort Law, November 2005Unlike “requests to admit,” Rule 222, Limited and Simplified Discovery in Certain Cases, has not been the focus of much attention. It, however, has been increasingly used to devastating effect and is a potentially more powerful tool than requests to admit.
Judicial notice revisitedBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2005Recently, I was involved in a trial where my opponent was attempting to have the court take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance.
Opinion witness disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 213By Russell W. HartiganFamily Law, September 2005In 2002, Rule 213(f) underwent a dramatic change in the manner in which trial witnesses are disclosed. Prior to the amendment, parties were required merely to provide minimal information upon request of opposing counsel.
When in doubt, read the rulesBy Joan PiotrowskiBench and Bar, September 2005The danger of relying on "curbstone" opinions has been shown by Liebovich Steel and Aluminum Company v. Advance Iron Works, Inc., 03-AR-446 (2nd Dist. 2004).
Practice tip: Request for admission of fact: A valuable but underused toolBy Patrick J. HitpasGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, August 2005How often do you utilize Supreme Court Rule 216 to request an admission of fact? You are probably not filing requests pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 216 as often as the rule permits.
Moving as the non-movantBy Anthony LongoTort Law, June 2005Time is the great enemy of all people, and lawyers are no exception. Often in litigation, a primary goal of your client is to move things along quickly, rather than at a pace dictated by other parties.
Opinion witness disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 213By Russell W. HartiganCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2005In 2002, Rule 213(f) underwent a dramatic change in the manner in which trial witnesses are disclosed. Prior to the amendment, parties were required merely to provide minimal information upon request of opposing counsel. Furthermore, Rule 213(f) typically applied to lay witnesses.
Requests to admitBy Jerold S. Solovy & Robert L. BymanAdministrative Law, April 2005Your opponent serves requests to admit to set you up for disaster. Admit and your adversary will use your admissions to get summary judgment or make her life easier, yours uncomfortable at trial.
Requests to admitBy Jerold S. Solovy & Robert L. BymanBench and Bar, March 2005Your opponent serves requests to admit to set you up for disaster.
Supreme Court Rule 216 offers a potential method to recover the expense of an evidence deposition after the Vicencio decisionBy Michael J. MarovichCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2004In preparing for trial, I have seen plaintiff's attorneys send to defense counsel requests to admit facts that seek admissions regarding the causal connection of medical treatment and the reasonableness of the medical bills in an effort to avoid the expense of taking evidence depositions of doctors or medical records personnel.
The hardline approach to Rule 216By Jennifer L. JacobsBench and Bar, March 2004As the result of recent case law, courts and attorneys alike are taking a closer look at the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 216.
Effective uses of Supreme Court Rule 216 requests to admitBy Albert E. DurkinTort Law, December 2003Requests for Admissions of Facts and Requests for Admission of Genuineness of Documents, a.k.a., "requests to admit," are an effective and often-overlooked discovery tool.
Beware of the pitfalls of Supreme Court Rule 216By Michael J. MarovichBench and Bar, November 2003All civil trial attorneys should take time to review the recent cases of Moy v. Ng, 341 Ill.App.3d 984, 793 N.E.2d 919 (1st Dist. 2003) and Montalbano Builders, Inc. v. Rauschenberger, 341 Ill.App.3d 1075, 794 N.E.2d 401 (3rd Dist. 2003) as they apply to requests to admit pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216. The two cases illustrate the perils of failure to strictly comply with Rule 216.
Beware of the pitfalls of Supreme Court Rule 216By Michael J. MarovichCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2003All civil trial attorneys should take time to review the recent cases of Moy v. Ng, 2003 WL 21498945 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., June 30, 2003) and Montalbano Builders, Inc. v. Rauschenberger, 2003 WL 21742271 (Ill. App. 3 Dist., July 25, 2003) as they apply to requests to admit pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216.
Supreme Court Rule 416(c)—Constitutional dimensionsBy Patrick E. WardGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, August 2003(c) Notice of Intention to Seek or Decline Death Penalty. The State's Attorney or Attorney General shall provide notice of the State's intention to seek or reject imposition of the death penalty by filing a Notice of Intent to Seek or Decline Death Penalty as soon as practicable.
Appellate court holds Supreme Court Rule 504 is applicable to DUI casesBy Larry A. DavisTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2003Since the Supreme Court's decision in 1976 in Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 356 N.E. 2d 59 (1976), it has been this author's experience that many courts have been reluctant or have refused to apply the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 504 (166 Ill. 2d R. 504) to major traffic offenses, such as DUI.
Effective use of SCR 213(f)By Frank A. PerroneTort Law, May 2003On July 1, 2002, amendments to Supreme Court Rule 213 went into effect. SCR 213(f) created a new system of categorizing witnesses: Lay witness, independent expert witness and controlled expert witness.
Illinois Supreme Court amends Rule 307 to allow early appeal in class action lawsuitsBy Michele M. JochnerBench and Bar, March 2003The Illinois Supreme Court has amended Rule 307, effective January 1, 2003, to permit a party to seek a discretionary, interlocutory appeal of whether a lawsuit was properly certified as a class action prior to the resolution of the suit at the trial court level.
