Moses W. Harrison 2

In Evans v. Shannon, the parents of Timothy Evans sued for wrongful death after he was killed in a collision with a car driven by intoxicated, unlicensed defendant Derrick Shannon, who had taken the vehicle without permission from defendant Margrum's auto detailing shop; the car was owned by defendant Vogler Motor Company, which had entrusted it to Margrum for cleaning. Plaintiffs pursued a negligent entrustment claim against Vogler, and a jury found Vogler 9% at fault, leading to disputes over joint versus several liability. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Vogler, holding that the trial court should have granted Vogler's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court reasoned that Vogler had no duty to inquire about Shannon's license status, neither knew nor should have known of an unreasonable risk, and granted no express or implied permission for Shannon's unauthorized use of the vehicle after business hours.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Pervis Daniels sought benefits from his employer, Archibald Candy Company, after injuring his back on the job; an arbitrator awarded temporary total disability benefits, medical expenses, and penalties, but the Industrial Commission reduced the award and vacated the additional compensation. Daniels appealed, arguing that the Commission's decision was void because the hearing panel included improperly appointed acting commissioners rather than gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the Senate as required by the Workers' Compensation Act. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the panel was illegally constituted because the Act limits the chairman's authority to designate arbitrators as acting commissioners only to situations where a sitting commissioner is temporarily unavailable, not when vacancies arise from promotions or resignations. The court reasoned that the proper appointment process had not been followed, rendering the Commission's order void on its face and subject to challenge despite procedural objections. The decision addressed both the statutory appointment requirements and the scope of collateral attacks on agency orders.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved William Devoney, a former Chicago police lieutenant convicted of federal mail fraud for participating in an insurance fraud scheme with associates, including one who exploited Devoney's status as an officer. After his conviction, the Retirement Board denied his application for pension benefits under section 5-227 of the Illinois Pension Code, which bars benefits for felonies relating to or arising out of service as a policeman. The circuit court and appellate court affirmed the denial, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed as well, holding that Devoney's employment as a police officer provided the necessary connection because it made him a target for recruitment into the scheme. The court reasoned that the statutory language requires only a nexus between the felony and the officer's service, not direct use of police authority or on-duty conduct.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case involved a dispute over reimbursement from a personal injury settlement to an ERISA-governed health benefit plan for medical expenses paid to the plaintiff after a car accident. The plaintiff sought to apply Illinois' common fund doctrine to reduce the plan's lien by a share of attorney fees and costs, while the plan argued ERISA preempted state court jurisdiction and required full reimbursement under plan terms. The Illinois Supreme Court held that ERISA did not preempt the state action and that the common fund doctrine applied because the plan benefited from the settlement created by the plaintiff's attorney without contributing to the costs. The court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the circuit court's application of the doctrine to reduce the reimbursement amount.

healthcarefederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case consolidated eight lawsuits filed by Illinois voters and incumbent legislators challenging specific House districts in the redistricting plan adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Commission after the 2000 census. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the districts were invalid under the Illinois Constitution's compactness requirement and asked the court to substitute their proposed boundaries. Following its recent decision in Cole-Randazzo v. Ryan upholding the same plan, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the challenges, finding no procedural flaws in the Commission's process and concluding that the districts met constitutional standards. The court exercised its original jurisdiction under article IV, section 3 of the state constitution to reach this result.

elections

This case was an original action in the Illinois Supreme Court challenging the legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Illinois Legislative Redistricting Commission after the 2000 federal census. Plaintiffs and intervenors contested the boundaries of several legislative and representative districts, primarily arguing that they failed the state's constitutional requirement of compactness, while conceding compliance with population equality, contiguity, minority representation, and political fairness standards. The court upheld the plan, finding that the districts' compactness levels were not discernibly different from those in a prior court-approved map from ten years earlier, with supporting data from mathematical tests confirming minimal overall change. The majority concluded that the plan satisfied all applicable constitutional criteria under article IV, section 3 of the Illinois Constitution.

elections

The case involved Herbert Varner, who was convicted of criminal sexual assault against his niece and, as his prison term ended, faced civil commitment proceedings under Illinois' Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. A jury found him to be a sexually violent person based on diagnoses of pedophilia and a personality disorder creating a substantial probability of future sexual violence, leading to indefinite commitment to the Department of Human Services. Varner appealed, arguing the Act violated substantive due process because its definition of mental disorder (a condition affecting emotional or volitional capacity predisposing a person to sexual violence) did not explicitly limit commitment to those lacking volitional control. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act's requirements align with constitutional standards by ensuring application only to those unable to control their behavior, and distinguished it from a similar Kansas statute previously invalidated.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a tenured teacher suing St. Rita High School for breach of contract and promissory estoppel after the school stopped paying a salary differential during his medical leave and later terminated his employment due to extended absences from multiple hospitalizations and surgeries. The circuit court dismissed counts alleging breach of salary, tenure, and related policies, and granted summary judgment on the remaining counts, but the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the tenure-breach count. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff had abandoned his contract rights, given that his prolonged absence was tied to documented medical conditions, he had attempted to return with accommodations, and the school had previously acknowledged his sick leave status.

labor & employment

The case involved a tenant, Aurelia Lawrence, who sued her landlord, Regent Realty Group, under Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance for failing to pay annual interest on the portion of her security deposit designated for pets, despite the ordinance requiring interest payments on all security deposits held over six months. The trial court awarded only the deposit plus interest, but the appellate court reversed, granting double damages plus interest and attorney fees. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance's mandatory language creates strict liability for landlords without any requirement to prove willful violation, as evidenced by the absence of a willfulness element unlike in comparable state statutes. The court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the ordinance's text and purpose to ensure consistent interest payments on deposits.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In People v. Harvey, the defendant, convicted of armed robbery in 1985 and sentenced to an extended 45-year term based on a prior 1974 attempted murder conviction, filed a section 2-1401 petition arguing the sentence was void because attempted murder did not qualify as the same or greater class felony under the extended-term sentencing statute. The circuit court rejected the petition, the appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that outcome. The court held that challenges to void judgments may proceed outside the two-year limit of section 2-1401, but on the merits the extended-term requirements were satisfied since both offenses were Class X felonies committed within the statutory timeframe and arising from separate acts. The opinion addressed procedural rules for attacking judgments and confirmed that mislabeled petitions can be treated as collateral attacks on void sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a capital murder prosecution in which defendant Marilyn Lemak, facing trial for killing her three children and planning an insanity defense, obtained trial-court permission to depose her husband under newly adopted Illinois Supreme Court rules governing discovery in death-penalty cases. The DuPage County State's Attorney petitioned for mandamus or a supervisory order to vacate the discovery order. The Illinois Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Rule 416(e) expressly authorizes such depositions upon a showing of good cause, that the case remained at the pretrial stage so the rule applied, and that questions under prior law were therefore moot. The court further concluded that the trial judge had not abused discretion in finding good cause on the facts presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Graceia M. Voyles suing her mortgage servicer, Sandia Mortgage Corporation, for damages after the company reported her account as delinquent to credit agencies following a dispute over increased monthly payments due to a tax escrow shortage. After a bench trial, the circuit court awarded Voyles $10,000 on negligence claims for inaccurate reporting and failure to correct it but rejected her claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of good faith, and punitive damages. The appellate court reversed on the non-negligence claims and remanded for additional damages hearings, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the circuit court's judgment. The court reasoned that the credit reports were accurate and truthful because Voyles had not paid the full amount owed, so there was no basis for defamation or unjustified interference, and the trial court's finding that the defendant's conduct was not intentional was supported by the evidence.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

In People v. Richardson, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of first degree murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault in the killing and sexual assault of Nina Glover. On appeal, he argued that the trial court violated the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act by considering victim impact statements from three family members rather than a single representative, and that the Act's bar on appellate relief for such violations was unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the statute's plain language limits statements to one representative and was therefore violated, but that both the Act and the Illinois Constitution's crime victim's rights amendment expressly prohibit using any such violation as a ground for appellate relief or a new sentencing hearing. The court affirmed the sentence on that basis without reaching the constitutional challenges to the relief limitation.

criminal lawprocedure

Jerry Izzo, an 18-year-old student, was charged under section 21-6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 with unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon on public school property after carrying a folding knife with a blade over three inches at school. The circuit court dismissed the complaint on constitutional grounds, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed on direct appeal. The court held that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague under due process protections because it does not implicate first amendment rights and can be validly applied in identifiable circumstances, and Izzo's own conduct clearly fell within the statute's prohibitions. The court further held that the statute does not violate separation of powers under the Illinois Constitution, as it does not transfer prosecutorial authority from the State's Attorney to chief security officers or allow them to override other criminal laws.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved homebuilders who paid transportation impact fees to DuPage County under a 1987 state enabling statute and county ordinances later held unconstitutional in a 1995 decision (NIHBA). The plaintiffs, who were not parties to that prior case, filed suit in 1996 seeking refunds of fees paid between 1988 and 1990, asserting claims including mandamus, declaratory judgment, and restitution. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were barred from recovery because the five-year statute of limitations under section 13-205 of the Code of Civil Procedure had expired. The court reasoned that such refund actions accrue when the fees are paid, and neither equitable principles nor the timing of the NIHBA decision could extend the limitations period or revive the claims.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

This case concerned the validity of a policy adopted by the Cook County collector for handling multiple simultaneous identical bids at the statutory maximum 18% penalty rate during annual tax sales of delinquent property under the Illinois Property Tax Code. Bidders challenged the policy, which treated such bids as invalid and forfeited the property rather than selecting a winner at random, after the collector implemented it to restore competitive bidding. The circuit court invalidated the policy and enjoined its enforcement on cross-motions for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, and the supreme court affirmed that judgment. The court held that the policy aligned with the statute's requirement that property be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest penalty percentage, applied only when multiple identical bids occurred simultaneously, and did not exceed the collector's authority or produce absurd results.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

Jerome Krule, convicted of felony theft in 1988 for facilitating an insurance fraud scheme involving inflated medical bills submitted to insurers while working as a licensed insurance professional, graduated from law school in 1994 and petitioned for admission to the Illinois bar. The Committee on Character and Fitness denied certification after hearings, finding Krule had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the good moral character and general fitness required, due to his role in the fraud, lack of candor in disclosures, and inadequate rehabilitation. The Illinois Supreme Court denied his petition for review, ruling that the Committee's recommendation was not arbitrary and that final authority over bar admissions rests with the court but deference applies to such character determinations.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Marcus Cooper and Chester Starnes were convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm arising from a 1994 Chicago gang shooting between Gangster Disciples and Black Disciples, where the defendants fired at rivals who returned fire, killing a fellow Gangster Disciple and wounding a Black Disciple; the convictions rested on an accountability theory. The appellate court reversed the murder convictions for lack of evidence that the defendants aided the actual shooter under the accountability statute but affirmed the battery convictions and remanded for possible consideration of uncharged felony murder. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the murder convictions could not stand under accountability principles because there was no proof the defendants solicited, aided, or agreed to help the rival gang member who killed the victim, affirmed the aggravated battery convictions based on evidence that the defendants themselves fired the shots that wounded the victim, and vacated the remand order.

criminal law

The case concerned whether the State's evidence was sufficient to convict Jennifer Schmalz beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia after a bench trial in Peoria County. Police entered a residence in response to a call, found Schmalz and three others in a small, smoke-filled upstairs bedroom containing bongs and bags of cannabis on the floor and couch; Schmalz sat within reach of some items, stated they were "having a party," and no contraband was found on her person. The circuit court convicted her and imposed supervision, the appellate court reversed, and the supreme court reversed the appellate court, holding that a rational trier of fact could find she had knowledge and immediate control of the items based on her proximity, the room's conditions, and surrounding circumstances. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

criminal law

This consolidated appeal involved two defendants each convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. In cause No. 87382 the court addressed whether a child victim could testify via closed-circuit television under the Child Shield Act without violating the defendant's confrontation rights. In cause No. 87434 the court examined whether conducting a section 115-10 hearing on the admissibility of the child's hearsay statements outside the defendant's presence violated due process. The court affirmed the appellate judgment in the confrontation case but, in the due process case, held that the defendant had a right to be present at the critical-stage hearing, that the right was not waived, and that the violation constituted plain error requiring a new hearing with the defendant present and a new trial. The opinion remanded the due-process matter accordingly while finding the evidence otherwise sufficient to avoid double-jeopardy concerns.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights