_(1).jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles — appointed by Ronald Reagan
BONHOMME v. St. James
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-05-24 · cited 10×
In this case, plaintiff Paula Bonhomme sued defendant Janna St. James after St. James created multiple fictional online personas, including a romantic interest named Jesse, and maintained an elaborate deception involving emails, calls, letters, and gifts over nearly two years, resulting in emotional distress and financial losses for Bonhomme. The circuit court dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint with prejudice except fraudulent misrepresentation, which it later dismissed with prejudice in the third amended complaint; the appellate court affirmed the dismissals of the earlier claims but reversed the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation count. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's full dismissal, holding that a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation requires a commercial, transactional, or regulatory context in which the state has a valid public policy interest, which was absent here because the facts involved only a purely private personal relationship with no such elements. The court reasoned that the hallmarks of ordinary human interactions like trust, affection, and grief do not give rise to this tort, and noted that other remedies might exist but this particular claim failed as a matter of law.
torts & liabilityprocedure
In RE MARRIAGE OF McGRATH
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-05-24 · cited 10×
The case concerned whether an unemployed father's regular withdrawals from his savings account could be treated as net income when calculating his child support obligation under section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. After the divorce judgment reserved the support issue, the trial court ordered $2,000 monthly support by including the father's $8,500 monthly savings withdrawals as income, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that such withdrawals are not income because they represent depletion of an asset rather than a new source of earnings or distributions covered by the statute's definition. The court explained that the Act's guidelines must first be applied to actual net income, after which a court may deviate downward or upward by making specific findings that consider the noncustodial parent's financial resources and needs.
family law
People v. Chapman
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-03-22 · cited 30×
In People v. Chapman, defendant Robert J. Chapman was convicted of first-degree murder of his girlfriend after the State introduced evidence of his prior domestic battery conviction against the same victim under section 115-20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendant argued on appeal that the statute does not allow such prior convictions to be admitted in a murder trial even when the victim was a household member. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that section 115-20 permits the introduction of a prior domestic battery conviction against the same victim to show propensity in a subsequent murder trial where the victim was a family or household member and the incident resulted from domestic violence. The court reasoned that the evidence was relevant to intent and to rebut self-defense claims, and that the trial court properly found it more probative than prejudicial.
criminal lawprocedure
Powell v. Dean Foods Co.
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-01-20 · cited 8×
This case involved wrongful death claims arising from a fatal car accident between a passenger vehicle and a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Jamie Reeves while hauling milk products for corporate defendants including Dean Foods Company and Alco of Wisconsin. After a jury found the defendants jointly and severally liable, the appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court had erred in denying defendant Alder Group's motion for substitution of judge as of right under section 2-1001(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the remaining defendants lacked standing to challenge the denial of Alder Group's motion because only the moving party may assert its own right to substitution, and Alder Group had since been dismissed from the case. The court therefore vacated the appellate court's order, reinstated the trial court's judgments in favor of the plaintiffs against Alco of Wisconsin, Dean Foods Company, and Reeves, and remanded for consideration of the defendants' remaining appellate issues.
proceduretorts & liability
People v. Gutierrez
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-01-20 · cited 28×
The case concerned whether a $250 public defender fee imposed by a circuit clerk, without notice or a hearing on the defendant's ability to pay, should be vacated outright or remanded for a hearing after the statutory 90-day period had expired. Defendant Elias Gutierrez had been convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and appealed various fines and fees, including this one imposed by the Lake County circuit clerk. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the fee must be vacated because the clerk lacked authority to impose it on its own, and the statute requires a court to provide notice and a hearing focused on the defendant's financial circumstances before imposing reimbursement for appointed counsel. The court rejected remand, distinguishing prior precedent and emphasizing that the time limit had passed and the imposition was improper from the start.
criminal lawprocedure
John Crane, Inc. v. APPELLATE COURT
Illinois Supreme Court · 2012-01-18
This case involves a motion for supervisory order filed by John Crane Inc. in the Illinois Supreme Court regarding an appeal dismissed by the Appellate Court, First District, in John Crane, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company et al. The Supreme Court vacated its earlier denial of the motion and allowed it, directing the appellate court to vacate its July and August 2011 orders dismissing the appeal, to reinstate the appeal, and to consider the case on the merits. The court also dismissed a related petition for leave to appeal in the same matter. The decision was issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's supervisory authority, with Justice Thomas taking no part.
procedure