Notes on the 33rd annual meeting of local area agencies on agingBy Ann B. ConroyElder Law, June 2007Sandy Markwood, CEO of the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (cutely nicknamed N4A), proved to be an energetic Keynote speaker at the thirty-third annual meeting of the eight-county Northeastern Illinois Area Agency on Aging in Aurora, on April 13, 2007.
Obtaining accommodations for college students with disabilitiesBy Matthew CohenChild Law, September 2007Although some children with disabilities may have impairments that are so severe that college is not a realistic option for them, many others have the potential to be highly successful in college and beyond, particularly if provided the appropriate accommodations that they need to function within the college environment.
Offer in compromiseBy George E. MarifianFederal Taxation, August 2007These Comments are submitted partly in response to changes to the offer in compromise program (the “OIC Program”) enacted as part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-222) (“TIPRA”).
Oil and gas law for the non-oil and gas lawyerBy John C. Robison, Jr.Mineral Law, December 2007 In this article an overview of oil and gas law is presented for the practitioner who only occasionally encounters real estate with oil and gas issues.
Overview of attorney review casesBy Joseph R. Fortunato, Jr.Real Estate Law, October 2007Contract forms have contained clauses described variously as “Attorney Approval,” “Attorney Modification,” “Attorney Disapproval” and “Attorney Review.”
Partnering Agreements: how to get along with your adversariesBy Margery NewmanReal Estate Law, January 2007Unlike Teaming Agreements and Joint Venture Agreements, a Partnering Agreement is not just a method of how people work together in the construction industry.
Pay yourself in residential real estate transactionsBy Peter R. OlsonReal Estate Law, February 2007The author lists 10 factors whereby you can directly fatten your client’s checkbook during your next real estate transaction.
Pay[ment] attention: a lesson in avoiding unintended accord and satisfactionBy J. Matthew PfeifferCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2007A fairly recent decision from the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois will likely have corporate office managers, accounts receivable employees, and the like, double-checking each payment and correspondence received from their customers to make sure the fate that met the plaintiff in MKL Pre-Press Electronics/MKL Computer Media Supplies, Inc. v. La Crosse Litho Supply, LLC, 361 Ill.App.3d 872, 840 N.E.2d 687 (1st Dist. 2005), does not befall them.
Payment eligibility and limitationsAgricultural Law, December 2007This article is from the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Web site.
Petitions for relief from judgments under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401By Kimberly A. Davis & James F. McCluskeyCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2007Pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, a litigant is allowed the proverbial two bites at the apple to vacate a default order or other final order or judgment.
Plaintiff guesses wrong on naming right defendant for review caseBy Steven P. GarmisaAdministrative Law, November 2007Providing an unfavorable comparison to Illinois law, a wonderful Wisconsin statute says administrative agencies must inform people exactly who should be named as respondents in a petition for administrative review.
The policy, the whole policy and nothing but the policyBy Kristen A. WadiakWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2007In a recent case of first impression, the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois decided that the Defendant, an insurance company, was not allowed to pick and choose which parts of their uninsured policy were applicable regarding issues of workers’ compensation setoffs.
Practice Alert: Special issues in the social security disability case—COBRA & Medicare, aka, Snake Oil MedicineBy David R. BryantGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, March 2007The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Amendment Act of 1985 (COBRA) added ERISA Title I, Part 6, requiring that the sponsor of a group health plan make continuation coverage available to employees, spouses, ex-spouses, dependents, and others for periods of 18 to 36 months following an event that might otherwise result in loss of coverage.