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

This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed in Illinois by the estate of Suzanne Miller against Cary Hayes, stemming from a fatal car accident in Colorado where Hayes fell asleep while driving during a multi-state road trip. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Colorado law should apply due to the accident location, which would cap damages at $45,000, unlike Illinois law with no such limit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Illinois law applies, based on the most significant relationship test that weighs the parties' Illinois domicile and the centering of their relationship in Illinois more heavily than the place of injury, which was deemed non-controlling given the interstate travel.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a real estate purchase contract between plaintiff SJS Investments and defendant 450 East Partnership for property in Chicago. The contract included a mortgage contingency and allowed the buyer, if the contract terminated without its fault, to either recover its earnest money or seek specific performance. After failing to obtain financing by the deadline, the plaintiff notified the defendant and requested return of the earnest money from escrow, which it ultimately received; the defendant then refused to close, and the plaintiff sued for specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's request for and acceptance of the earnest money constituted an election of remedies that precluded seeking specific performance under the contract terms.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Erica Smith, who was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse against her minor son based on allegations that she touched his genitals during massages. Smith appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of detailed hearsay testimony from a psychologist under the corroborative complaint exception in section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the psychologist's opinion on the victim's credibility as invading the fact-finder's role. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the psychologist's testimony was properly admitted under the statute which allows details of the acts, and any opinion on truthfulness was permissible in a bench trial given the expert's qualifications.

criminal lawprocedure

In this slip-and-fall personal injury case, plaintiff filed suit on the last day of the statute of limitations against three defendants, including the nonexistent "Cook County Public Building Commission," for injuries sustained in the Daley Center; the summons was addressed to Cook County officials. The trial court dismissed the Public Building Commission of Chicago (the actual owner) after finding the error constituted a misidentification of the party rather than a correctable misnomer under section 2-401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court affirmed, holding that objective indicators such as the Cook County address on the summons showed plaintiff had named the wrong party, so the post-limitations amendment did not relate the claim back to the timely filing.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a personal injury claim by Thomas Juretic against USX Corporation under the Structural Work Act after he fell from an electrical tower while working for P.K. Engineering on USX property. USX filed a second-amended third-party complaint against P.K. Engineering that included count III alleging breach of contract for failing to obtain required insurance coverage naming USX as an additional insured. The trial court dismissed count III on the ground that the insurance provision was inextricably tied to a void indemnity clause in the parties' contract. The appellate court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the insurance article contained separable provisions covering liability for bodily injury, death, and property damage arising from the work that were enforceable independently of the invalid indemnity provision.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Smith, the State appealed trial court rulings that quashed defendant Danny Smith's arrest for armed robbery and suppressed lineup and in-court identifications of him by witnesses. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the police lacked probable cause to arrest Smith because the information from an arrested associate and a background check did not sufficiently link him to specific crimes and the entry into the home was pretextual. The court further reasoned that the lineup identifications were not attenuated from the illegal arrest due to the lack of intervening circumstances and the flagrancy of the police conduct, and that the in-court identifications lacked an independent basis because the witnesses' descriptions were inaccurate or influenced and they had no prior acquaintance with the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

In this product liability case, plaintiff Ronald Marshall sued defendant Taylor-Wharton Company, the manufacturer of a tractor-trailer, alleging defective design and manufacture caused a rollover accident that left him a quadriplegic. After a jury awarded plaintiff an $8.2 million verdict, defendant appealed, raising issues under Illinois Supreme Court Rules 220(b) and 220(d) concerning the trial court's handling of plaintiff's late substitution of an expert witness after the original expert became unavailable. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by denying a continuance to allow adequate discovery of the substitute expert and by permitting trial testimony that exceeded the fair scope of the opinions disclosed during discovery proceedings. The decision rested on the requirements of Rule 220 governing timely disclosure of expert opinions and the prejudice to defendant from the last-minute substitution and expanded testimony.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Marvin Washington's conviction for murder and attempted armed robbery after a jury trial, stemming from a 1986 incident in which a gunman wearing a mask attempted to rob a group of men gambling in a Chicago basement, resulting in the fatal shooting of Steve Baker. The trial court sentenced Washington to 40 years in prison after the jury declined to impose the death penalty. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution's evidence, including identifications by witnesses Clark, Powell, and Ellis, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also ruled that newly discovered testimony from Larry Reed at the sentencing hearing was not credible or conclusive enough to warrant a new trial, and that any restrictions on defense cross-examination of Ellis were proper or harmless since the witness answered the questions anyway.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant John Clark's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school under Illinois law. On appeal, Clark challenged the fairness of his jury trial, arguing that statements during voir dire by a police officer venire member who knew him prejudiced the jury, that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that the State failed to prove the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that no prejudice resulted because the potentially biased venire members were not selected as jurors and the remaining jurors affirmed their impartiality, that the evidence of distance was sufficient based on the officer's testimony estimating it as well within 1,000 feet, and that other claims were waived for failure to preserve them at trial. The court applied standards requiring abuse of discretion for mistrial denials and viewed evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution for sufficiency challenges.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Arthur Susman sued defendants Vern and Norma Price and Joseph Sadacca, seeking a declaratory judgment and specific performance to enforce an option agreement granting him a 25% interest in the Prices' Chicago property after they contracted to sell it to Sadacca. The trial court ruled that if the option was enforceable, Susman would receive only 25% of the sale proceeds rather than an ownership interest in the property itself and permitted the sale to proceed, while including a Rule 304(a) finding of no just reason to delay appeal. Susman appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the trial order was not final because it used conditional language about enforceability, did not dispose of either count of the complaint or any party, and addressed only a preliminary issue that might not need resolution if the option proved unenforceable.

propertyprocedure

In this case, a tenant sued her landlord and related parties for failing to pay the required 5% annual interest on her security deposit under Illinois state law and Chicago municipal code, seeking to represent a class of current and former tenants who similarly did not receive interest. The trial court dismissed the class action counts without prejudice, finding no predominant common questions of law or fact. On appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed and remanded, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged common questions based on the consistent business practice of violating the interest payment laws and that individual issues like lease defaults did not predominate since the class was limited to non-defaulting tenants.

procedureproperty

In People v. James, the defendant and his wife were charged with controlled substance offenses, jointly represented by the same attorney, and after trial began they entered guilty pleas pursuant to a plea agreement, with the defendant receiving a six-year sentence. The defendant moved to vacate his plea but his counsel did not file the certificate required by Supreme Court Rule 604(d); he appealed on grounds including the missing certificate, incomplete Rule 402 admonishments, an insufficient factual basis, and an alleged conflict of interest from the joint representation. The court held that the missing certificate entitled the defendant to a new hearing on the motion, that the admonishment and factual-basis claims were waived because they were not raised below, and that no actual conflict of interest was shown because the record did not demonstrate coercion or divided loyalty. It therefore affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Jamie Davis, who was convicted by a jury in Cook County circuit court of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and who also pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful use of a weapon; he received consecutive prison sentences totaling nine years. On appeal, Davis contended that multiple improper comments by the prosecution during trial, including insinuations about a tip and characterizations of the defense, denied him a fair trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the challenged remarks were not sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal, that the trial court had sustained objections and admonished the jury to disregard them, that some comments were invited by the defense or supported by the record, and that the jury instructions cured any residual effect.

criminal law

The case involved a Chicago police officer, Ronald Poturalski, who was discharged by the Police Board after a hearing found he violated residency requirements. Poturalski filed a complaint for administrative review naming only the Board but not the police superintendent who had brought the charges, and he did not issue summons on the superintendent within the required 35 days. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the superintendent was a necessary party of record under the Administrative Review Law. The court reasoned that the 35-day deadline for naming parties and issuing summons is mandatory and cannot be cured by later amendment, following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Lockett v. Chicago Police Board, with no good-faith effort shown by Poturalski to comply.

procedure