This website is for ISBA staff use only. All visitors should return to the main ISBA website.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the Civil cases Jane Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors and Santiago v. E.W. Bliss Company.
By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinion in the Criminal case People v. Hackett.
By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the Civil case Harris v. Thompson and the Criminal case People v. Hollins.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
The interplay between the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”) divided the Court in Harris v. Thompson.
The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with a Massac County ambulance. He sued the County defendants for negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss and, following an adverse jury verdict, moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, asserting that they were immune from liability based on negligence pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act. That Act provides that a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle when responding to an emergency call. The trial court denied the motions and the Appellate Court (Fifth District) affirmed. Those courts found that the Illinois Vehicle Code, which imposes a duty to refrain from negligence, is the more specific statute and supersedes the Tort Immunity Act.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Bonhomme v. St. James and In re Marriage of McGrath and the criminal case People v. Kinney.
By Michael T. Reagan, The Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Clemons, People v. Hunt, People v. Dominguez and People v. Edwards.
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
At first blush, it seems a simple axiom: the punishment should fit the crime. Figuring out when a penalty is disproportionate to the offense, however, has long been a thorny issue, particularly because the Legislature has adopted several overlapping provisions that enhance the length of sentences based on the involvement of firearms in offenses. As a result, criminal defendants frequently argue that their punishment violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Constitution where they receive a sentence that exceeds the range of sentences applied to other cases that are identical to the offense of which they were convicted. In 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court held that "common sense and sound logic dictate that the penalties for identical offenses should be identical." People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63. Thus, In Hauschild, the Supreme Court held that "the sentence for armed robbery while armed with a firearm violates the proportionate penalties clause because the penalty for that offense is more severe than the penalty for the identical offense of armed violence predicated on robbery with a category I or category II weapon.” Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 87.
By Michael T. Reagan, The Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan
The circuit and appellate courts had rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the Cook County ordinance banning assault weapons. While the plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal was pending in the Illinois Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United States filed its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010). The Illinois Supreme Court entered a supervisory order directing the appellate court to vacate its prior judgment and to reconsider the appeal in light of McDonald.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Simpkins v. CSX Transportation and Wisnasky-Bettorf v. Pierce and criminal cases People v. Chapman and People v. Cathey.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Chicago Teachers Union v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District and criminal cases People v. Washington, People v. Guerrero and People v. Baskerville.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Wrice and People v. Torres and civil cases Innovative Modular Solutions v. Hazel Crest School District 152.5 and Citizens Opposing Pollution v. Exxonmobil Coal U.S.A.
By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Sandholm v. Kuecker and Powell v. Dean Foods Company and criminal cases People v. Adams, People v. Gutierrez, People v. Washington and People v. Rinehart.
By Michael T. Reagan, The Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan