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 case Township of Jubilee v. State of Illinois and criminal case People v. Young.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank, In re Haley D., Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills and Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo.
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. Hammond, People v. Gutman, People v. Villa, People v. Snyder and People v. Johnson. Click here to read about Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank, In re Haley D., Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills and Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo.
By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender
Hammondinvolves consolidated cases dealing with the power and authority of probation officers. Two particular issues were considered: (1) whether a probation officer has the authority to file a petition charging a violation of probation, and (2) whether a State’s Attorney may overrule a probation officer’s decision to offer intermediate sanctions for a technical violation of probation pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(i).
The Court concluded that a probation officer’s filing of a petition charging a violation of probation was proper and did not violation separation of powers principles. The State still bears the burden of proving the violation, and the court must still impose an appropriate sanction for the violation, if proved.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases A.B.A.T.E. of Ill., v. Quinn and Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Board. The Illinois Supreme Court summaries are included for Criminal case People v. Hill and Family Law case In re Dar. C. and Das. C., Minors.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
This case concerned issues of legislative authority regarding an amendment to the Cycle
Rider Safety Training Act. In 1993, the legislature amended the Cycle Rider Safety Training Fund (CRSTF) from a special fund inside the state treasury to a “trust fundoutside of the State treasury.” The appeal considered what effect this amendment had on the legislature’s authority to order the transfer of funds out of the CRSTF and into the General Revenue Fund (GRF). The issues included whether the transfer of funds out of the CRSTF amounted to an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without just compensation and whether, in order to transfer funds out of the CRSTF, the legislature had to first amend the CRST Act. The appellate court held that the removal of funds from the CRSTF was not an unconstitutional taking and that the legislature had the authority to order a transfer of funds out of the CRSTF and into the GRF. The Supreme Court affirmed.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case City of Chicago v. StubHub and criminal case People v. Taylor.
By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC
Citing the state’s long history of protecting consumers, including the regulation of ticket resellers and “internet auctioneers,” the Illinois Supreme Court found that the City of Chicago overstepped its home rule authority in trying to collect “amusement taxes” on StubHub resales. StubHub, a state-registered “internet auction listing service,” describes itself as “the world’s largest online ticket marketplace”; there, for a service fee, a user can buy and sell tickets to events throughout the country.
The city notified StubHub that it might be a “reseller’s agent” subject to a local tax, and asked StubHub for information regarding its sales for Chicago events. When StubHub refused, the city sued to obtain that information and for back taxes and penalties. A federal district judge dismissed the case, and the city appealed. Under Supreme Court Rule 20, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to answer a question posed by the Seventh Circuit: “[W]hether municipalities may require electronic intermediators to collect and remit amusement taxes on resold tickets.” The answer is no.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Peterson v. Peterson, Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co. and In re Mulroe and criminal cases People v. Masterson and People v. White.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
This family law case resolved the appropriate means by which to apportion postdissolution decree college expenses where the judgment of dissolution reserved the issue for future consideration.
The Petersens’ 1999 divorce decree provided that the court “expressly reserves the issue of each party’s obligation to contribute to the college…expenses of the parties’ children pursuant to Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Marriage Dissolution Act.” The decree also ordered the husband (Kevin) to pay monthly child support.
In 2007, the wife (Janet) filed a petition to allocate past and future college expenses for their children. The circuit court ordered Kevin to pay 75% of the total college expenses for all three children. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the 2007 petition constituted a modification to the 1999 decree. It held that the circuit court could not order Kevin to pay for those expenses that predated the filing of the petition.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the family law case O'Brien v. O'Brien and criminal case People v. White.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
This family law case actually involves the much broader issue of the proper standard to be used in deciding whether to substitute a judge “for cause.”
Lisa O’Brien filed domestic battery charges against her estranged husband, John O’Brien. Judge Joseph Waldeck presided over an evidentiary hearing in that matter and made certain evidentiary rulings. Judge Waldeck subsequently presided over the couple’s marital dissolution proceedings. About one year after the dissolution case was pending, John sought a substitution of judge pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure section 2-1001(a)(3), which provides for substitution “for cause.” Another judge considered the matter and denied substitution. From the final judgment, John appealed and the case reached the Illinois Supreme Court on a certificate of importance.