Affidavits and claims of privilege—The final word for nowBy Hon. Eugene G. DohertyNovember 2013The following is Judge Eugene G. Doherty’s further reply to Mr. Balzer’s response from our October issue, which, absent new case law, will be our last word on this subject for a few months.
All that snow: Barber v. G.J. Partners, Inc.By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Rachel FugettSeptember 2013Premise liability for a fall with injuries after snow was shoveled was at the heart of the case of Barber v. G.J. Partners, Inc.
Appellate court reverses dismissal of a financial fraud case: Rasgaitis v. Waterstone Financial GroupBy Sara SiegallMay 2013This recent decision offers useful reminders to civil litigators on a number of civil practices issues, and also teaches that statements concerning the suitability of a particular investment opportunity can be actionable as fraud where the statements are reasonably understood as grounded in fact rather than opinion.
Beware of opt-out provisions in tort settlement agreementsBy Stephen SoteloOctober 2013This article demystifies the opt-out provisions of the newly created Section 2-2301 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and warns practitioners what to look for when handling tort settlement agreements in the future.
Common-Law Doctrine trumps Fraudulent Transfer Act in holding decedent self-settlor to irrevocable pledgeBy George S. Bellas & A. Patrick AndesFebruary 2013In 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.
Costs: an imbroglio for trial courts and practitionersBy Patrick M. KinnallyMay 2013What constitutes an allowable "cost" is not subject to any bright line test. In large part, this uncertainty stems from Illinois cost statutes that do not say what "costs" are recoverable.
Court upholds use of absent witness’ discovery depositionBy Robert T. ParkNovember 2013In the recent decision of Calloway v. Bovis, the appellate court upheld jury awards totaling nearly $10 million dollars against a construction manager in a case arising from a trench collapse that killed a father and seriously injured his son
Does an affidavit really prove a privilege?By David J. BalzerSeptember 2013Unlike summary judgment motions and proving service on an individual, there is no Supreme Court Rule, Code of Civil Procedure section or Rule of Evidence carving out an exception that permits the use of an affidavit to prove a privilege. In other words, your opposing counsel has a decent argument that your affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. Ignoring this risks falling short of meeting your burden.
Failure to follow local e-filing rule not fatal to appealBy Timothy J. ChorvatNovember 2013In VC&M, Ltd. v. Andrews, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a judgment against it, as well as a subsequent notice of appeal from that judgment, were not nullities even though those documents were filed electronically in contravention of applicable local rules.
Follow-up on September articleBy Eugene G. Doherty & David J. BalzerOctober 2013A reader's comments on the article, "Does an Affidavit Really Prove a Privilege,” and reaction to those comments from the article's author.
Frezados v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital: A clear case of apparent agencyBy Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Emily LaskowskiAugust 2013One area of frequent litigation in medical malpractice cases, particularly at the summary judgment stage, is the question of whether or not a physician can be considered the apparent agent of the hospital at which he or she is authorized to practice.
The Illinois duty to preserve ESI: A bridge over troubled watersBy George S. Bellas & Rebecca Pucinski KeithleyMarch 2013Due to the dramatic increase in the use of digital technology in business today, the time is ripe for the judiciary and practitioners to take note of how electronically stored information is gathered and used at trial.
The Illinois Supreme Court expands the immunity provision of the Emergency Medical Services Systems ActBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Jessica L. FangmanJuly 2013The Illinois Supreme Court in Wilkins v. Williams held the immunity provision of the EMS Act protects government employees and the employees of privately owned ambulance businesses from civil lawsuits filed by patients or third parties, provided the act or omission was not willful and wanton.
National policy favoring class arbitration reaffirmedBy Mark RouleauSeptember 2013In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the United States Supreme Court “reaffirmed the national policy favoring arbitration in relation to class arbitration.”
New guidelines on privileged marital communicationsBy Jeffrey A. ParnessDecember 2013In the recent case of People v. Trzeciak, Justice Theis was "troubled" by the majority's definition of confidentiality, which she found to constitute “a new exception” not found in statute. What was the new exception and will it apply in civil as well as criminal cases?
New Illinois Evidence Rule 502By Jeffrey A. ParnessJanuary 2013Effective January 1, 2013, new Illinois Evidence Rule 502 establishes standards on losses of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection via disclosure.
No duty to preserve evidence in negligent spoliation caseBy Hon. Russell W. Hartigan & Christina FaklisJanuary 2013A discussion of the Illinois Supreme Court’s reasoning and impact of the recent case of Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., where the Court held that the defendants had no duty to preserve the physical evidence, a concrete I-beam that fell and injured several employees during a bridge collapse.
No strict liability under the Illinois Animal Control ActBy Jason G. SchutteAugust 2013In Hayes v. Adams, the Second District analyzed whether a dog owner who is not in actual possession or control of their dog at the time the dog bites and injures someone can be liable to the injured person under the Illinois Animal Control Act.
Non-residents’ streams of conduct and personal jurisdictionBy Jeffrey A. ParnessJuly 2013The most difficult issue in specific jurisdiction cases often involves the requirement of purposeful availment by the nonresident of the benefits to be had in the foreign forum. The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Fiore v. Walden, affording it yet another chance to elaborate on this requirement.
Personal representatives and special administrators in tort claims: There is a differenceBy Patrick M. KinnallyDecember 2013Should civil procedure rules should bar prima facie claims where a party dies in the tempest of a garden-variety personal injury claim? Or, frankly, what is the difference between a “special administrator” and a “personal representative”?
Prior consistent statements in trial practice: Can you use them?By Patrick M. KinnallyNovember 2013Our judges and juries are smart enough to figure out that the mere repetition of what a witness thinks is true, even on a repetitive basis, does not make it so.
Seven mistakes expert witnesses makeBy Thomas M. McCauleyAugust 2013In determining the facts in their areas of expertise, expert witnesses must guard against making the following seven mistakes.