Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Appellate Court of Illinois
People v. Wigod
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-12-03 · cited 6×
Defendant Lee Wigod was charged with failure to support under the Non-Support Punishment Act for unpaid child support arrears exceeding $20,000 over a period longer than one year. He entered a blind guilty plea after limited admonishments from the trial court regarding sentencing consequences and appeal rights, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, and ordered to pay $85,802 in restitution. On appeal, Wigod challenged the adequacy of the plea admonishments under Supreme Court Rules 604 and 605, the ex parte denial of his post-plea motions, and the restitution order's scope, including potential inclusion of pre-Act arrears that could violate ex post facto principles. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, directing a full accounting of the arrearage chronology and credits to ensure compliance with the statute.
criminal lawfamily lawprocedure
People v. Johnson
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-11-24 · cited 13×
In this criminal case, defendant William Johnson was convicted by a jury of home invasion and armed robbery based on evidence including testimony from his codefendant Jose Torres about a planned robbery that resulted in an assault on the victim. On appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court erred by rejecting his proposed supplemental voir dire questions on racial and ethnic bias and by failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) regarding juror understanding of legal principles. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that any potential errors were not reversible because the evidence was not closely balanced and the claims were subject to procedural default. The court reviewed the trial record, including jury notes during deliberations, and concluded there was sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to the crimes without needing to address the merits of the voir dire issues in detail.
criminal lawprocedure
Pritza v. Village of Lansing
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-11-24 · cited 11×
The case involved a police officer injured in a crash with an underinsured driver who sought to reform the Village of Lansing's agreement with the Illinois Municipal League Risk Management Association (IMLRMA) to include underinsured motorist coverage and to recover damages under section 155 of the Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that IMLRMA was not an insurer and that the village, as a self-insured municipality, was exempt from the underinsured coverage mandates of the Insurance Code and the Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that precedent establishes self-insuring municipalities and their risk pools are not insurers subject to those statutory requirements, that no duty to provide such coverage exists, and that section 155 relief is unavailable against non-insurers. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal from an earlier order denying uninsured coverage.
torts & liability
Bruce v. Atadero
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-11-12 · cited 26×
In this case, plaintiff Paula Bruce, as special administrator of her husband's estate, sued multiple defendants including Sherman Hospital and Dr. Arsenio Atadero for wrongful death and survival claims arising from alleged negligent failure to diagnose deep vein thrombosis during treatment that occurred primarily in McHenry County. After the case had been pending in McHenry County for nearly two years, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it and refiled the identical claims in Cook County. Defendants moved to transfer the case back to McHenry County on intrastate forum non conveniens grounds, but the trial court denied the motions. The appellate court reversed, holding that plaintiff's choice of forum deserved less deference because she did not reside in Cook County, the events did not occur there, and most occurrence witnesses and key treatment locations were in McHenry County, while Cook County had only tenuous connections through unrelated hospital facilities and some damage witnesses.
proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare
Piser v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-11-12 · cited 67×
The case involved a motorcycle owner who sued his insurer, State Farm, for breach of contract and vexatious delay under the Insurance Code after the company denied his theft claim. State Farm moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9), asserting that the insured's failure to cooperate with requests for financial documents, a credit report authorization, and an examination under oath violated the policy's cooperation clause and constituted an affirmative defense. The circuit court granted the dismissal with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the insurer's unrebutted affidavits established the lack of cooperation as a complete bar to the action and that plaintiffs must file counteraffidavits to contest such evidentiary facts.
business & regulatoryprocedure
People v. Leach
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-11-12 · cited 26×
In this case, defendant Curtis Leach was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder for strangling his wife during a domestic argument and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that admission of autopsy findings from a retired pathologist who did not testify violated his confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, and that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm, warranting only a lesser homicide conviction. The appellate court had previously affirmed the conviction, and after the Illinois Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of People v. Williams, the court again affirmed. It held that the confrontation issue did not require reversal under the applicable precedent and that the evidence, including the defendant's confession and the undisturbed crime scene, sufficiently supported the trial court's finding of the requisite mental state for first-degree murder.
criminal lawprocedure