Section Newsletters

Articles From A. Patrick Andes

Common-Law Doctrine trumps Fraudulent Transfer Act in holding decedent self-settlor to irrevocable pledge By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2013 In Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the first district appellate court’s ruling in favor of a self-settled trust denying plaintiff Rush University Medical Center’s claim to a $1.5 million irrevocable pledge made by the settlor before he died, holding the trust was void as to existing and future creditors and Rush was entitled to the funds.
Jurisdiction of Illinois courts based on Internet content without Zippo By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Civil Practice and Procedure, July 2012 In recent years, courts have returned to a more traditional analysis to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists in Internet-related cases. The United States Supreme Court Calder v. Jones case in 1984 crafted the “effects” test, which would become the blueprint for contemporary Internet jurisdiction analysis in much of the United States and in Illinois, specifically.
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases? By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Bench and Bar, April 2012 The Supreme Court’s transition from Calles to Jablonski suggests that in negligent-product-design claims specifically and in products liability litigation generally, the Illinois Supreme Court may not yet be restricting duty analysis solely to the risk-utility test but has incorporated the consumer expectation test as a factor into the risk-utility test.
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases? By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Tort Law, March 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court's recent decision in Jablonski et al. v. Ford Motor Co. appears to illustrate a shift in how Illinois courts are deciding cases involving negligent-product-design claims.
Jablonski v. Ford: Is the Illinois Supreme Court crafting a new approach to duty analysis and proof in negligent-product-design cases? By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2011 The Supreme Court’s transition from Calles to Jablonski suggests that in negligent-product-design claims specifically and in products liability litigation generally, the Illinois Supreme Court may not yet be restricting duty analysis solely to the risk-utility test but has incorporated the consumer expectation test as a factor into the risk-utility test.
Internet evidence: How to authenticate evidence from the Internet under the new Illinois Rules of Evidence By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Bench and Bar, May 2011 A look at the relative simplicity of authenticating Internet evidence and the novel applications under the rules to this point.
Internet evidence: How to authenticate evidence from the Internet under the new Illinois Rules of Evidence By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2011 The new Illinois Rules of Evidence, which went into effect January 1, 2011, closely follow the federal rules both substantively and procedurally in the area of authentication of evidence and, specifically, Internet evidence.
Fourth District discredits 30-year “legitimate-business-interest” test and ignores own ruling for restrictive covenants By George S. Bellas & A. Patrick Andes Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2010 Creating a district split, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Steigmann, disregarded its own precedent and declared the “legitimate-business-interest” test “no longer valid, if it ever was.”

Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author