Rita B. Garman

In Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that she developed mesothelioma from asbestos fibers carried home on her husband's clothing during his employment with the defendant railroad from 1958 to 1964. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding no duty owed to the non-employee plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the dismissal but held that the complaint's allegations were insufficient to establish a duty of care, remanding the case to allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint. The court's reasoning focused on the factors for determining duty, including foreseeability of harm, the relationship between the parties, and public policy considerations regarding potential limitless liability.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Illinois attorney Robert C. Thomas, who had previously been suspended for 18 months following criminal convictions for DUI and driving on a revoked license. The Administrator charged Thomas with three counts of misconduct: making a false certificate of service to a bankruptcy court about when discovery materials were mailed, appearing as counsel in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals while suspended, and continuing to represent clients in DuPage County circuit court shortly after his suspension took effect. The Hearing Board found the charges proven and recommended a two-year suspension, but the Review Board recommended dismissal; the Supreme Court granted review and concluded that the misconduct had been established. The court imposed a one-year suspension, citing the deliberate nature of the violations, Thomas's prior discipline, and his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

procedure

In People v. Washington, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm following a shooting during a dispute over a car accident. The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but refused requests for instructions on second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. The appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny a second degree murder instruction when self-defense was instructed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the evidence raised a factual question about whether the defendant's belief in the need for force was reasonable or unreasonable, and that the jury should have been allowed to consider second degree murder.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a truck dealership, Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, that sued Sterling Truck Corporation, Daimler Trucks, and an executive after the manufacturer discontinued the Sterling brand and terminated the dealer's franchise and related agreements, alleging violations of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act along with breach of contract, tortious interference, and fraud claims. The circuit court dismissed most counts, the appellate court affirmed while also finding lack of subject matter jurisdiction over certain Act claims that should have gone to the Motor Vehicle Review Board, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court held that claims seeking damages under section 4(d)(6) of the Act for improper termination must be filed first with the MVRB, which can determine good cause before any circuit court action for damages. Arguments challenging the dismissals of other counts under section 2-615 were deemed forfeited because they were not raised in the petition for leave to appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Illinois attorney Mark Gerard Mulroe for improperly using funds from an IOLTA account that held escrow money from a client's divorce case to pay his personal and business expenses without authorization. The Hearing Board found that Mulroe had converted the funds and violated several rules of professional conduct, though it determined there was no clear evidence of dishonest intent. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the finding of misconduct and imposed a three-month suspension from practice along with a requirement to attend a professionalism seminar, reasoning that the lack of dishonest intent, full restitution, remorse, and Mulroe's otherwise good record warranted this sanction rather than a longer suspension.

procedure

This case involved the distribution of insufficient proceeds from a foreclosure sale of developed property between a mortgagee bank and several mechanics lien claimants, where the mortgage predated the liens but the bank had funded various construction improvements through loan disbursements. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the mortgagee was entitled to subrogation priority for the value of improvements it paid for, with that portion of the sale proceeds applied first to satisfy the mortgage. The court's reasoning centered on section 16 of the Mechanics Lien Act, which provides for subrogation in such circumstances to determine the proper allocation between the mortgage and the liens.

property

The case involved parents suing healthcare providers for wrongful birth and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that negligent genetic counseling and failure to disclose test results about a hereditary mutation caused them to conceive a second child with Angelman Syndrome. The circuit court limited wrongful-birth damages to costs incurred before the child reached majority and dismissed the emotional-distress claim. The appellate court held that parents could recover post-majority care costs for a dependent disabled adult child and that the emotional-distress claim was adequately pleaded. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that extraordinary care expenses after majority are recoverable in a wrongful-birth action and that the emotional-distress allegations were sufficient.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In this consolidated case, three defendants charged with driving under the influence and other traffic offenses received citations setting their first court appearance dates beyond the 60-day maximum allowed by Supreme Court Rule 504. The circuit court dismissed the charges with prejudice after the defendants appeared on the original dates and moved to dismiss for the rule violation, and the appellate court affirmed on the ground that the defendants had announced ready for trial. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the defendants had appeared within the 14-to-60-day window, filed jury and speedy-trial demands, and thereby fulfilled the rule's purpose, waiving any claim of violation; the court further noted that the policy behind Rule 504 applies primarily to fine-only offenses rather than misdemeanors such as DUI.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a clause in an underinsured-motorist insurance policy that permits either party to demand a trial de novo after arbitration is enforceable under Illinois law. After an arbitrator awarded the insured $382,500, the insurer invoked the clause to reject the award and seek a jury trial, while the insured argued the provision violated public policy favoring arbitration and was unconscionable. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the trial de novo provision does not violate public policy, is not unconscionable, and is enforceable by either party. It reversed the appellate court's decision striking the clause and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the insured's counterclaim to enforce the arbitration award, overruling prior appellate decisions to the contrary. The court reasoned that the clause creates only a limited imbalance in rights, does not unfairly surprise the insured, and allows both parties to reassess their positions after arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Teodoro Baez, who pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Cook County to the murders of Juan Estrada and Janet Mena. The court found him eligible for the death penalty, weighed aggravating and mitigating evidence, and imposed a death sentence. After remand to allow a late motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which was denied following an evidentiary hearing, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on direct appeal. The court reasoned that the murders consisted of a prolonged series of brutal and deliberate acts, not an isolated emotional outburst, and that the defendant had committed additional acts of violence while incarcerated.

criminal law

In People v. Manning, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and simple possession, based on evidence that he sold cocaine to undercover officers from a residence where additional drugs and paraphernalia were later found. On appeal, he argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge for cause or peremptorily strike a juror who, during voir dire, repeatedly stated he could not be fair to a registered sex offender. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that counsel's decision to seat the juror was not objectively unreasonable under Strickland v. Washington and thus did not constitute deficient performance. The court reasoned that the record supported a finding that the juror could set aside his views on the unrelated sex-offender status when deciding the drug charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff William Carr sued Gateway, Inc., alleging misrepresentation regarding the speed of a computer processor he purchased, and Gateway moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the sales agreement that designated the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) as the exclusive arbitral forum. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no valid agreement to arbitrate, and the appellate court affirmed on the ground that the unavailability of the NAF (which had ceased accepting consumer arbitrations) caused the arbitration provision to fail. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the specific designation of the NAF was integral to the arbitration agreement because the contract included a penalty clause for using any other forum, and therefore section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act did not permit the court to appoint a substitute arbitrator. As a result, the agreement to arbitrate failed entirely, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of being an armed habitual criminal who was sentenced to six years in the Department of Corrections and sought an additional day of presentence custody credit for the date of his sentencing and commitment. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the circuit court should award presentence credit only up to but not including the sentencing date, which instead counts as the first day of the sentence to be credited by the Department. The court's reasoning was based on the plain language of section 5-4.5-100 of the Unified Code of Corrections, under which a sentence commences when the offender is received by the Department and the mittimus transfers legal custody, so that the day must be counted as a sentence day rather than presentence custody to avoid double-counting.

criminal law

The case concerned Gregory Dabbs's conviction for domestic battery against his girlfriend in Tazewell County, where the trial court admitted testimony from his ex-wife about a prior incident of physical abuse under section 115-7.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, Dabbs argued that the statute violated due process and equal protection by allowing propensity evidence in domestic violence prosecutions, contrary to the common-law rule against such evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and upheld the statute's constitutionality, reasoning that it creates a narrow, valid exception to the general bar on propensity evidence, consistent with its prior decision in People v. Donoho regarding a similar statute, and that the evidence met other admissibility requirements. The equal protection claim was deemed abandoned for lack of argument in the briefs.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the prosecution of Rodney Adkins for first-degree murder, home invasion, and residential burglary in the circuit court of Cook County, based on evidence including DNA, fingerprints, and witness statements linking him to the crimes committed on July 31, 2003. After a jury convicted him, he was sentenced to death in a bench trial. On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court properly weighed aggravating factors over mitigating ones, including the defendant's prison behavior, in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Richard Vancura suing Kinko's (and others) after his signature was forged on an assignment of a mortgage note, which was then improperly notarized by a Kinko's employee using his seal; Vancura alleged Kinko's was liable both under the Illinois Notary Public Act and for common-law negligent training and supervision of the notary. After a bench trial, the circuit court found Kinko's liable on both grounds, the appellate court reversed only the statutory claim, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review. The court held that Kinko's training and supervision of its notary employees complied with the standards in the Notary Public Act, so the evidence did not support a finding of negligence, and it reversed the judgments against Kinko's on both counts while remanding for entry of judgment in Kinko's favor.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Daniel Ramsey, who was convicted after a jury trial and guilty plea of two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion, and related charges stemming from a 1996 incident in which he killed two victims, sexually assaulted one, and shot others including children at the Sloop residence. Following reversal of his initial convictions, he pleaded guilty, a jury found him eligible for and imposed the death penalty, and the trial court sentenced him to death plus 60 years in prison. On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, finding no reversible error in the proceedings including the state's disclosure of aggravating factors under Supreme Court Rule 416 and other trial issues. The court also conducted an independent review of the evidence and concluded that the death penalty was appropriate with no fundamental injustice. The opinion details the defendant's confession and the sequence of crimes but focuses on procedural compliance and sentencing review under state law.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Italo Sanders was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 after the trial court admitted evidence of gang affiliation and refused to question potential jurors about gang bias during voir dire. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, Sanders filed a postconviction petition in 2001 raising the voir dire issue in light of the Illinois Supreme Court's 2000 decision in People v. Strain. The circuit court dismissed the petition after third-stage proceedings, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Strain announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does not apply retroactively on collateral review and that the petition was untimely under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Marianna Krywin, who slipped on snow and ice while exiting a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) train at an elevated platform and sued the CTA for negligence and willful and wanton conduct in maintaining the station. A jury found for the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the natural accumulation rule shields common carriers like the CTA from liability for injuries caused by snow and ice that accumulate naturally on platforms, even though carriers owe passengers the highest degree of care. It reasoned that longstanding Illinois precedent applies this rule to carriers, and the evidence showed no artificial accumulation or other breach. The dissent argued the rule should not extend to carriers and urged adoption of a reasonable care standard.

torts & liability

In this criminal case, defendant Eric Hanson was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and identity theft for killing his parents, sister, and brother-in-law, and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed challenges to evidentiary rulings, including admission of hearsay testimony under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine and other trial and sentencing issues. The court affirmed the murder, robbery, and identity-theft convictions along with the death sentence, concluding that the circuit court did not err in its evidentiary decisions or sentencing procedures and that the death-penalty statute was constitutional. However, it vacated the aggravated-kidnapping convictions because they merged into the murder convictions. The court determined that these vacated convictions did not affect the validity of the remaining convictions or the death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure