Tobias Barry

The case involved a petition by the State to involuntarily admit respondent John N. to a mental health facility and to administer psychotropic medication. Emergency medical personnel transported the respondent to the facility along with a police officer, but one of the medical personnel signed the petition instead of the officer. The trial court granted both the involuntary admission and the medication orders. On appeal, the court reversed both orders, holding that the statute requires a peace officer who transports the subject to complete the petition and that noncompliance renders the admission order invalid as a matter of law. The medication order was also reversed because it depended on the respondent qualifying as a recipient of services through the admission.

healthcareprocedure

Michael Watson sued Waste Management of Illinois, the Kankakee County Board, and the County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the claim that a 2001 county ordinance changing the method of electing board members from multi-member districts to single-member districts without a countywide referendum violated Article VII, Section 3(b) of the Illinois Constitution, rendering the board improperly constituted and without authority to accept or decide a landfill siting application under the Environmental Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint under section 2-615, ruling that the exclusive remedy was a quo warranto action. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that quo warranto is not the exclusive remedy when the complaint primarily challenges the constitutionality of an ordinance and that declaratory and injunctive relief may be pursued instead.

electionsprocedureenvironment

In People v. Hinton, the defendant was charged with aggravated and domestic battery, waived his right to counsel, and entered a fully negotiated guilty plea; after sentencing, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, but the trial court did not appoint counsel and dismissed the motion. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court violated Supreme Court Rule 604(d) by failing to appoint counsel for the postplea motion, while the State claimed the prior waiver of counsel extended to those proceedings. The appellate court held that the defendant's earlier waiver of counsel did not apply to the postplea stage because the trial court had specifically admonished him under Rule 605(b) that counsel would be appointed if indigent, and Rule 604(d) requires the court to determine representation and appoint counsel for indigent defendants filing such motions. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings with appointed counsel, absent a knowing new waiver. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a beneficiary's lawsuit against co-trustees of a testamentary trust created by her late husband's will, alleging breach of fiduciary duty through unsuitable investments that caused trust losses and self-dealing via unauthorized personal loans from trust funds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the relevant counts, finding no evidence of bad faith as required by the trust terms. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's affidavits presented facts creating genuine issues of material fact about bad faith and self-dealing, including failure to make required distributions and misleading statements about the loans. The court noted that the trust instrument did not sanction the type of conflicts at issue, and discovery should not have been stayed before resolving the motion. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

property

The case involved David Beard, who was terminated by Sprint after a background check showed he had not disclosed on his job application a prior guilty plea to a public morals charge that resulted in court supervision, which Sprint's application defined as a conviction. Beard filed an employment discrimination complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights under the Illinois Human Rights Act, alleging improper use of arrest records, but the Department dismissed it for lack of substantial evidence and the chief legal counsel affirmed. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Act does not bar employers from defining convictions to include guilty pleas and supervision, permits use of information showing actual criminal conduct, and that the termination was based solely on the undisclosed conviction rather than arrest records.

labor & employmentcriminal lawcivil rights

In this divorce case, William and Catherine Murphy disputed the validity of their antenuptial agreement signed just before their 1988 wedding and the amount of maintenance payments following the 2003 dissolution judgment. The trial court upheld the agreement and ordered William to pay Catherine $15,000 per month in maintenance through May 2007. Catherine appealed, arguing the agreement was invalid due to the circumstances of its execution and that she needed a higher, indefinite maintenance award given her lifestyle and lack of employment. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Catherine could achieve self-sufficiency through employment at her prior salary level, renting out her properties, and investing her $826,000 property award, that the awarded maintenance plus over $450,000 in legal fees paid by William was adequate, and that she was not entitled to permanently maintain the marital standard of living.

family law