Francis S. Lorenz

In Steinroe Income Trust v. Continental Bank N.A., the plaintiff investment company sued the defendant collecting bank after a fraudulent scheme involving a stolen insurance check led to unauthorized redemptions and deposits, seeking to enforce presentment warranties under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code sections 3-417(1)(a) and 4-207(1)(a). The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that the drawer of the check, Steinroe, lacked standing to enforce the warranties because it was neither the payor bank nor an "other payor" under the statute, adopting the majority view that excludes drawers and rejecting the minority view from Sun ’N Sand. This interpretation was confirmed by subsequent amendments to the UCC that explicitly rejected the minority position.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between an insured driver and her auto insurer over the timeliness of a demand for arbitration on an uninsured motorist claim. The trial court granted the insurer judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint, ruling that the demand came more than two years after the accident in violation of the policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the policy's two-year limit ran from the "date of loss" rather than the accident date, and that the pleadings did not establish when the uninsured status of the other driver had been determined. The court concluded that the limitation period does not begin until the tort liability of the uninsured motorist is resolved by judgment or settlement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Marion Holmes' conviction for the 1980 murder of Elgin Evans, based primarily on the testimony of Ulric Williams, who was present at the scene along with codefendant William Franklin. At trial, the State described Williams as an innocent bystander whose testimony was not influenced by any expectation of leniency regarding his own potential involvement in the crime or a related armed robbery. Holmes appealed, arguing that the State had violated his due process rights by failing to disclose evidence from Williams' preliminary hearing testimony indicating he offered his account in hopes of receiving prosecutorial leniency, and by not correcting the false impression created at trial. The court agreed, holding that the State's conduct misled the jury and breached its affirmative duty to disclose such information, and therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Kurr v. Town of Cicero, property owners sued for a writ of mandamus to compel town officials to issue a certificate of compliance with local ordinances so they could sell their property, which included two buildings on one lot and other alleged code issues such as inadequate egress and an electrical panel. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed and remanded. The court held that the ordinance's notice requirements raised unresolved factual questions, that the building commissioner was not shown to have failed a mandatory duty, and that mandamus could not issue because plaintiffs had not established clear compliance with the zoning and building rules, including the assessed-value threshold for the rear building. Because material facts remained in dispute, neither summary judgment nor mandamus was appropriate.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned Dickey Gaines, who was convicted in 1979 of two murders and related offenses arising from a 1978 armed robbery and shooting in Chicago, initially receiving a death sentence that was later adjusted after federal habeas proceedings limited his liability to felony murder. Following a new death penalty hearing where the jury declined to impose capital punishment, the trial court sentenced him to natural life imprisonment, prompting appeals on issues including the racial makeup of the original jury, alleged speedy trial violations during post-federal remand proceedings, and the validity of the life sentence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions in part but reversed the natural life sentence and remanded for resentencing. It reasoned that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the shooter, as the key eyewitness identification was unreliable due to poor conditions, impaired perception, and conflicting evidence pointing to his brother instead.

criminal lawprocedure

In this child custody modification case, Steven Landau petitioned for sole custody of his son Adam from his former wife Carol, alleging inadequate care for the child's medical and developmental issues, after joint custody had previously been changed to sole custody with Carol. The trial court appointed an attorney to represent the child, a psychiatrist, and a social worker to evaluate the family and make recommendations; following a trial where Carol received a directed finding, it awarded fees to these appointees and denied Steven's later request to file a sanctions motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the fee awards because the incomplete record on appeal required presuming the trial court's discretion was properly exercised, affirmed the dismissal of Steven's petition for a rule to show cause against the child's attorney for failing to present certain evidence, and dismissed the sanctions appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the motion was filed more than 30 days after final judgment. The core reasoning centered on the appellant's burden to provide a sufficient record and the strict time limits for post-judgment motions.

family lawprocedure