James Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

In People v. Dobbey, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder for firing a rifle at three individuals, resulting in one death and one injury; he received consecutive prison sentences. He filed a pro se post-conviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise a Confrontation Clause challenge to the medical examiner's testimony about an autopsy report prepared by a different doctor who was no longer with the office. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the claim lacked an arguable basis in law or fact because autopsy reports are not testimonial evidence created for an evidentiary purpose like the lab reports in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, and the defendant could not show prejudice from the omission. The court distinguished the facts from Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming, noting that the reports here were not prepared solely to aid a police investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Jose Rivera challenging the City of Chicago Electoral Board's decision to invalidate his candidacy for alderman in the 45th Ward and bar his name from the February 2011 ballot, following objections by two individuals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Rivera's petition for judicial review and dismissed his appeal. The core reasoning was that Rivera failed to strictly comply with the service requirements of section 10-10.1 of the Illinois Election Code by serving the Board members and objectors via their attorneys rather than personally or by certified mail, and by not completing service within the five-day period that began when the Board mailed its decision; these procedural defects deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.

electionsprocedure

The case involved defendant Priest Willis's conviction after a jury trial for delivery of less than one gram of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school, for which he was sentenced as a Class X offender to eight years in prison based on his criminal history. On appeal, Willis argued that the trial court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) regarding juror admonishments on principles like the presumption of innocence and the right not to testify, that improper closing arguments prejudiced him, that his sentence was excessive, and that he was entitled to additional sentencing credit and fee reductions; the State agreed on the credit and some fee issues. After the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing reconsideration in light of People v. Thompson, the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence while modifying the mittimus to grant four additional days of credit and adjust fees, rejecting the Rule 431(b) and other claims on grounds including lack of prejudice and statutory authority for the DNA fee.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Agolf, LLC sued the Village of Arlington Heights seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, along with constitutional claims, to challenge the village's implementation of a tax increment financing (TIF) district that included the plaintiff's shopping center property as part of a redevelopment project. The trial court granted summary judgment to the village on the basis of res judicata, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that a prior suit by Capital Fitness, a tenant in the same property, had already fully litigated and lost the same claims regarding the validity of the TIF ordinance and redevelopment plan, and that Agolf was in privity with Capital Fitness due to their shared property interests and aligned opposition to the village's actions. The court held that all elements of res judicata were met, barring relitigation of the issues.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Property owners near Grant Park sued the Chicago Plan Commission and other city defendants to challenge the city council's approval of an amendment to a planned development ordinance that would permit construction of a children's museum and park district field house. The defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to serve the written notice to all property owners within 250 feet that is required by section 11-13-8 of the Illinois Municipal Code before filing a declaratory action attacking a zoning ordinance. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint; the appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory notice requirement is mandatory and that the plaintiffs' failure to comply with it barred their suit.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved two minor plaintiffs suing Motorola, Inc., alleging that their birth defects resulted from their parents' occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as ethylene glycol ethers, while working in semiconductor manufacturing "clean rooms" in Arizona and Texas. The plaintiffs brought claims of negligence, strict liability, and willful misconduct in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting that decisions regarding the chemicals were made at Motorola's Illinois headquarters. Motorola moved to dismiss or transfer the case to Texas based on forum non conveniens, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the denial, concluding that the private and public interest factors did not strongly favor trying the case in Texas over Illinois.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a petition by the State to adjudicate minor William H. as a ward of the court, alleging neglect due to an injurious environment and abuse due to substantial risk of injury based on his biological father's incarceration and his biological mother Dorothy H.'s history of mental illness, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and prior indicated reports. The trial court granted temporary custody to DCFS after a hearing and later adjudged William a ward of the court while finding that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for his removal from the home. On appeal, the mother contended that these findings were erroneous and sought reversal. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the record contained ample evidence supporting the trial court's determinations, which were driven by the minor's best interests under the Juvenile Court Act rather than solely by efforts toward reunification.

family law

The case involved a challenge to Michael Stinson's candidacy for alderman in Chicago's 28th Ward in the 2011 municipal election, where an objector asserted he was ineligible under section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Illinois Municipal Code due to owing over $600 in unpaid traffic tickets to the city. The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners initially overruled the objection based on insufficient evidence of notice to Stinson, but the circuit court reversed, finding that the statute does not require proof of notice. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision to disqualify Stinson and keep his name off the ballot. The court reasoned through de novo statutory interpretation that the plain language of the provision declares any candidate in arrears on municipal debts ineligible without mentioning or imposing any notice requirement, and that courts may not read in additional conditions not enacted by the legislature.

elections

In Manning v. City of Chicago, the plaintiff, as special administratrix of David Wilson's estate, appealed a jury verdict in favor of the City of Chicago and Detective Luke Daly in a civil suit arising from Wilson being shot by the detective in a police interview room while in custody. The underlying claims included willful and wanton conduct and agency, after the trial court had dismissed negligence counts and denied leave to amend. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the notice of appeal filed on June 17, 2009, was untimely because posttrial motions and extensions were filed or granted after the deadlines under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) and section 2-1202(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure had expired, rendering the trial court's later orders void.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by plaintiff Migdalia Serrano against Dr. Carlos Rotman, alleging negligence in failing to properly address her hemophilia carrier status and Factor IX needs during and after reverse tubal ligation surgery, which led to post-operative complications like a hematoma. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged multiple trial court rulings, including the handling of requests to admit, denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, refusal of a specific jury instruction, and various evidentiary decisions regarding hearsay and state-of-mind exceptions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any of the challenged rulings and that the excluded evidence was either inadmissible or cumulative.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case arose from plaintiff Joseph Severino's personal injury while riding a horse at defendant Freedom Woods' business, leading to an initial complaint under the Animal Control Act and for negligence that was partially dismissed, amended, and then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. After refiling with counts for negligence and willful and wanton conduct, the trial court dismissed the refiled complaint on res judicata grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of the willful and wanton count but reversed on the negligence count, holding that the voluntary dismissal order and docket entry expressly reserved the right to refile, triggering an exception to res judicata. The reasoning relied on the language of the dismissal order stating costs were due upon refiling and the docket noting "Voluntary Dismissal W[ith] Leave to Refile," consistent with precedent that such reservations prevent the prior action from barring the new suit.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Kevin Barker, who was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault after a jury trial and later sought postconviction forensic testing, specifically Y-STR DNA analysis, on crime scene evidence such as vaginal swabs and fingernail scrapings to support a claim of actual innocence. The trial court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed that denial. The court reasoned that the evidence had already undergone standard STR-based DNA testing via PCR methods, which produced usable profiles entered into CODIS, and that Y-STR testing would not yield new, noncumulative, or materially relevant results because it is less probative for identifying a single contributor and has not been established as superior in Illinois precedent. The opinion also noted the lack of forced entry and other trial evidence linking the defendant but focused primarily on the testing petition's insufficiency under the relevant statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. English, defendant Johnny English appealed the denial of his successive postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act after an evidentiary hearing, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call alibi witnesses in his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and armed robbery stemming from a 1995 shooting. The trial court had dismissed some claims but held an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance allegations before denying the petition. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that counsel had investigated potential witnesses identified near trial, determined they were occurrence witnesses rather than alibis whose testimony would place the defendant at the scene, and that any failure was a matter of trial strategy; moreover, the defendant could not show prejudice given his detailed confession, corroborating eyewitness testimony from the surviving victim and another witness, and the strength of the evidence against him. The court found no manifest error in the trial court's decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Clarence Bowers suing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, claiming that the insurer's use of employee staff attorneys to represent its insureds constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The circuit court dismissed the sole remaining count with prejudice under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that section 5 of the Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act and precedent such as Kittay v. AllState Insurance Co. expressly authorize insurance companies to employ staff counsel where their interests align with those of the insured. The court further held that the arrangement did not conflict with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which apply to attorneys rather than corporations, and that a related consolidated case provided additional support under the law-of-the-case doctrine.

business & regulatoryprocedure