.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
People v. Velez
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2012-03-22 · cited 1×
In this case, defendant Samuel Velez was convicted after a jury trial of child abduction for approaching and offering a ride to a 14-year-old girl walking home from school in his van, and the trial court found the offense sexually motivated, leading to a two-year sentence and sex offender registration. On appeal, Velez challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including a claimed due process violation from a jury instruction's permissive presumption, vagueness of the child abduction statute as applied, denial of a bill of particulars, limits on cross-examination, and lack of procedural safeguards or factual support for the sexual motivation determination. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the conviction and related findings, holding that the jury instruction was constitutionally permissible, the statute provided adequate notice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion on procedural motions, and the defendant received due process through his opportunity to contest the elements at trial. The court also upheld the sexual motivation finding as supported by the evidence of the defendant's actions toward the minor.
criminal lawprocedure
Waugh v. MORGAN STANLEY AND CO., INC.
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2012-03-01 · cited 14×
The case arose from a 2006 fatal airplane crash during a landing approach that killed the pilot, Mark Turek, and three passengers, prompting consolidated wrongful death and contribution actions against Morgan Stanley, Turek's estate, flight instructors, and training providers. Plaintiffs and counterplaintiffs alleged negligence in the pilot's simulator training, flight instruction, and observation by defendants including Howard Levinson and Hark Corporation. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Levinson and Hark on all claims framed as educational malpractice. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the claims sounded in non-cognizable educational malpractice rather than ordinary negligence because they required judicial assessment of the adequacy and methods of professional instruction, which Illinois courts decline to undertake on public policy grounds such as the absence of a manageable standard of care and problems of causation.
torts & liability
In Re Estate of Boyar
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2012-01-26
The case involved a son contesting the sixth amendment to his late father's trust, which replaced prior cotrustees with a new sole trustee and eliminated beneficiaries' ability to remove trustees. The circuit court dismissed the petition under the doctrine of election, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the son's acceptance of personal property distributed from the trust after his father's death constituted ratification of the trust agreement as a whole, barring his challenge to the amendment. It extended the doctrine of election—previously applied to wills—to trusts in this context, rejecting arguments that the acceptance was nominal, ambiguous, or limited in scope given the severability clause. The decision rested on the principle that a beneficiary cannot accept benefits under a trust instrument while simultaneously seeking to invalidate part of it.
propertyprocedurefamily law
US BANK NAT. ASS'N v. Manzo
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-11-10 · cited 2×
The case concerned homeowners who, facing a foreclosure action on their mortgage, sought to rescind the loan under the Truth in Lending Act based on alleged failures to provide required disclosures at closing. The trial court dismissed their affirmative defense, counterclaim, and related claims under section 2-619, ruling that the three-year rescission period had expired without proper exercise of the right. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the rescission claim, holding that the borrowers' letters to the lender did not constitute sufficient notice of intent to rescind within the statutory deadline and that no state-law recoupment exception applied, but reversed and remanded on the separate damages claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1640 because that provision is not subject to the same three-year bar.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Gatreaux v. DKW ENTERPRISES, LLC
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-09-22 · cited 56×
The case involved former hourly employees at McDonald's franchises suing the owners and related entities for alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Wage Payment and Collection Act, including failures to pay minimum wage and overtime, improper uniform deductions, and manipulation of time records; the suit was filed as a class action on behalf of similarly situated workers. Before the plaintiffs moved for class certification, the defendants tendered full payment of all amounts allegedly due to the three named plaintiffs, who rejected the offer; the defendants then moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that under Illinois precedent a defendant's tender of complete individual relief to named plaintiffs prior to class certification moots the action.
labor & employmentprocedure
Rose v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-09-15 · cited 2×
The case involved a police officer, Michael Rose, who sought a line-of-duty disability pension under the Illinois Pension Code after a February 2004 on-duty car accident caused permanent back injuries, with the board instead granting only a nonduty pension based on a later off-duty accident and finding the initial incident was not an act of duty. The Pension Board denied the line-of-duty claim, but the circuit court reversed that decision on administrative review and awarded the higher pension. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officer was performing an act of duty during the on-duty accident and that it contributed to his disability under the relevant statutory provisions. The court applied de novo review to the statutory interpretation of act of duty and addressed causation evidence from multiple medical experts.
labor & employmentprocedure