Articles Posted in Court trends

by

During a relay race at a party for members of the Calvary Kids Club (CKC), a running backwards race resulted in an injury to one of the children, who broke both of her arms. The event was sponsored by the Calvary Chapel of Lake Villa.

The lawsuit for the injuries to Brittney Gallarneau was brought alleging that Calvary Chapel was negligent. The issue on the motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant Calvary Chapel was whether the Calvary Kid’s Club qualified as a school under Section 24-24 of the Illinois school law. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of Calvary Chapel, and this appeal followed.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversing the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment concluded that, “While Calvary provides religious instructions through Calvary Kid’s Club (CKC), CKC is nevertheless not the type of establishment that comes within the scope of Section 24-24; thus, Calvary is not entitled to the immunity provided by that section.”

Continue reading

by

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has signed a bill into law that would require defendants in most civil cases to submit to plaintiffs an executed release within 14 days of a written settlement agreement. The new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

Significantly, the new law will require a defendant to pay all of the settlement amounts to the plaintiff within 30 days of the date that the signed release is tendered to the defendant. If the defendant fails to timely pay the money required by the agreement, the plaintiff can return to court on a motion for added costs and interest.

The law will create a new “Part 23” of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure to be titled “Settlement of Claims; Payment” (735 ILCS 5/2-2301).

Continue reading

by

Great caution must be taken when multi-count lawsuits are filed and a voluntary dismissal considered. Suppose one of the three counts of the complaint turns out to be unsustainable and a voluntary dismissal is taken as to Count II leaving Counts I and III.  The voluntary dismissal as to that count II amounts to a dismissal with prejudice.

Suppose further that as the case remains, the case reaches a point where the plaintiff makes a decision to voluntarily dismiss without the remaining two-count complaint under Illinois Code of Civil Procedure §2-1009, which allows the refiling of the case within one year.

This is where it becomes very tricky. Under the Hudson v. City of Chicago, the Illinois Supreme Court set out the issue as:  “Whether the involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim and plaintiffs’ subsequent voluntary dismissal of their remaining willful and wanton misconduct claim (against the City of Chicago) barred the refiling of their willful and wanton misconduct claim under the doctrine of res judicata.” What the Illinois Supreme Court was looking at is that in Hudson, the original complaint was two counts. The first count sounded in negligence and the second willful and wanton misconduct.  Under the law, the City and its employees had immunity under the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act. 210 ILCS 50/3.150.

Continue reading

by

In a February 2010 lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, Sandra Relf, it was alleged that Joseph Pre Jr. was negligent when their vehicles crashed in February 2008. The Cook County Sheriff’s Office could not serve Pre with a lawsuit, so Relf filed a motion to appoint a special process server to deliver a service of summons to Pre. However, he died in April 2008. When Relf learned of Pre’s death, she filed a motion for leave to appoint a special administrator for Pre’s estate.

The trial judge approved the motion to name the special administrator of Pre’s estate. However, at the same time, Pre’s family opened a probate estate for him in August 2008, four months after the appointment of the special administrator. Because the estate already existed at the time Relf filed her lawsuit, the estate asked the judge to rule that the lawsuit was void. The estate argued that the appointment of a special administrator was improper because Pre’s family received no notice of it.

The response by plaintiff Relf was that she didn’t know that Pre had passed away when her lawsuit was filed. However, the trial judge granted the estate’s motion to dismiss and an appeal was taken.

Continue reading

by

In a close case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, defendant Will County Washington Township was held responsible for injuries suffered by occupants of an automobile in an accident that was alleged to have been caused by Washington Township roadway construction.

In this case, Ricky Robinson Sr. allegedly lost control of his car after hitting a pothole and construction debris on a roadway that was being fixed by Washington Township in Will County. The Robinson car turned over, injuring Rick Robinson Jr., Mr. Robinson’s son, a passenger in the car.

A lawsuit was brought against the township on behalf of Rick Jr., who was a minor, by his mother, alleging that the township was negligent because:
•

Continue reading

by

Even some of the lowest level arrests and criminal convictions can haunt a person for life. Through the volunteer work of attorneys at the Cabrini Green Legal Aid clinic (CGLA), Cook County Clerk Dorothy A. Brown, and The Center on Halsted, work is under way to provide expungement and record-sealing assistance for Chicago-area residents. This is vitally important because arrests and convictions pose hurdles for anyone who wants to apply for student loans, federally funded housing, state licenses and a whole host of other employment opportunities.

A seminar was held at The Center on Halsted, 3656 N. Halsted St. in Chicago, to educate 20 volunteer attorneys who will help those with records of crimes and/or arrests to expunge or seal their past deeds.

The hurdle is high to expunge a criminal record of arrest, but many who plead guilty to low-level crimes don’t understand that a conviction cannot be expunged. Beth A. Johnson is the program director at CGLA who is one of the attorneys leading this effort.

Continue reading

by

In Illinois, judges regularly run for judicial positions. Seeking office carries with it the cost of operating a political campaign, which includes fundraising. So the question becomes: How does a judge who runs for a judicial post keep court decisions separate from collecting campaign contributions from individuals and companies?
The answer was given by Jonathan Lippman, chief judge of the New York state Unified Court System. Judge Lippman said, “We may as well throw off our judicial robes.”

The judge spoke about this issue at The Union League Club of Chicago on May 23. The event was co-sponsored by Justice at Stake, an organization focused on keeping courts fair and impartial. It is based in Washington, D.C. Some local groups, including the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, were co-sponsors.

Continue reading