Quick takes on today's Illinois Supreme Court opinions

CIVIL

Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Company

By Michael T. Reagan, Herbolsheimer Lannon Henson Duncan and Reagan PC In Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Company, the high court ruled that the sections of the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act voiding a resident's waiver of the right to sue or to have a jury trial were ineffective to negate preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act. Though Carter was decided within the narrow confines of nursing-home litigation, its logic could affect a much broader range of preemption cases. For appellate lawyers, here's an interesting procedure point: the court said it was exercising jurisdiction pursuant to its supervisory authority. That was probably necessary because more than 21 days had expired after an initial denial of the petition for leave to appeal, during which time the Supreme Court of the United States had denied certiorari, and the Second District had issued a conflicting opinion. Case summary Supreme Court opinion 106511

Slovinski v. Elliot

By Jean M. Prendergast, Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C Civil practitioners will be wise to consider carefully Slovinsky v. Elliot, in which the Court refined the standard for reviewing remittitur and punitive damage awards, especially where the trial judge makes no specific findings. In this defamation per se case, the trial court reduced a $2 million jury award for punitive damages to $1 million. The appellate court further reduced the punitive damage award to $81,600 to match the compensatory damages. Justice Burke, with five justices concurring, affirmed, citing minimal evidence, and the jury’s awards of $0 for lost wages and reputation. The court ruled that the only question on appeal was whether the record supported the trial court’s remittitur. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion and noted, in part, that the defendant’s conduct was on the “low end” of the spectrum for punitive damages. Justice Kilbride, the lone dissenter, lamented the majority opinion as substituting the reviewing court’s judgment for the trial judge, and altering the role of the reviewing court. There is no doubt that trial courts, reviewing courts and the bar will give measured consideration to Slovinsky for years to come. Case summary Supreme Court opinion 107146

CRIMINAL

People v. Averett

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender A trial court's "blanket policy" of withholding ruling on a defendant's motion in limine regarding the admissibility of the defendant's prior convictions until after the defendant testifies is a "serious" error; it's just not structural error, constitutional error, or plain error. If the defendant exercises his right not to testify at his trial, then the trial court's "serious" error is wholly insulated from review. Justice Burke filed a relatively short, but sharply-worded, dissent, critical of the majority's refusal to find reversible error even though the error was "serious." Justice Freeman joined that dissent. Case summary Supreme Court opinion 106362

People v. Givens

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender Givens was an interesting case in which the Illinois Supreme Court effectively slapped the wrist of the appellate court. The high court criticized, and then reversed, the appellate court for, sua sponte, considering an issue not argued or briefed by the parties on appeal. Illinois courts of review are to follow the "party presentation" rule; that is, reviewing courts should not consider any issue not briefed by the parties unless, "a clear and obvious error" exists in the trial court proceedings. A court that does otherwise risks crossing the line from neutral jurist to advocate for a party. Case summary Supreme Court opinion 107323