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
In Re SD
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-08-05 · cited 1×
The case involved the State seeking to terminate the parental rights of Clarence T., the father of minors S.D., L.D., and E.T., after the father was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing the children's mother 30 times in the presence of one child and had multiple prior convictions for violent offenses. The trial court denied the father's motion for the judge to recuse himself based on overhearing unrelated courtroom discussion of murder trial evidence, found the father unfit due to depravity, and determined that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests given their lack of bond with the father, adjustment to foster care, and need for permanence. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed both the denial of recusal and the termination order, holding that the judge properly relied only on evidence presented in the termination proceedings and that the best-interests findings were supported by the record under the statutory factors. The court emphasized the children's security, continuity of care, and lack of relationship with the incarcerated father.
family lawcriminal lawprocedure
People v. Havlin
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-04-18 · cited 12×
In People v. Havlin, the defendant faced charges of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after a traffic stop where officers found pills in the vehicle and the defendant admitted ownership during questioning. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress those statements on the grounds that Miranda warnings had not been given. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the general on-scene investigation. The court reasoned that the defendant was not handcuffed, restrained, or told he was under arrest, remained with his companions, and was free to leave, so the encounter did not involve the custody and interrogation that trigger Miranda protections.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Gordon
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-04-05 · cited 10×
In this case, defendant Kevin Gordon was charged with obstructing a peace officer, a Class A misdemeanor, after police stopped a vehicle for traffic violations, issued him a seat belt citation, arrested another passenger for cannabis possession, and repeatedly ordered him and others to leave the scene while they completed their work and waited for a tow truck. Gordon refused to comply, yelled at and threatened the officers, and returned to the area after briefly leaving, leading to his arrest. Following a bench trial, the court convicted him based on evidence that his actions interfered with the officers' duties. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charging instrument sufficiently alleged and the evidence proved that Gordon knowingly obstructed the officers' authorized acts. A dissent argued that the facts did not constitute an offense and that the charging document was defective.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Russell
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-03-14 · cited 5×
In this case, the State charged Victor Russell with first-degree murder after he allegedly cut Carla Spires's neck with a sharp object, leading to her death; a jury convicted him and the trial court imposed a 50-year sentence. On appeal, Russell argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to individually question jurors as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) regarding principles such as the presumption of innocence and the State's burden of proof. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence against Russell was not closely balanced and that the Rule 431(b) error, though clear, did not affect the fairness of the trial or challenge the integrity of the judicial process under the plain-error doctrine as clarified in People v. Thompson. The court therefore found no basis to reverse despite the forfeited claim of error.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Marriage of Lichtenauer
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2011-03-09 · cited 12×
The case involved the dissolution of a marriage between Earl and Joanne Lichtenauer after nearly three decades, focusing on the division of marital assets and the award of permanent maintenance following the sale of Earl's business interests in Cipher and Baum Signs. During proceedings, evidence showed that Earl's live-in girlfriend became president of a newly formed company, Correct Electric, earning over $120,000 annually with the ability to transfer shares to Earl, while Earl claimed only his $70,000 salary as income. The trial court found the corporate structure contrived and imputed additional earning capacity to Earl when applying the factors under section 504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, resulting in a permanent maintenance award of $1,850 per month to Joanne. Earl appealed the maintenance award, contending that the court improperly considered his girlfriend's income and overstated his ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the finding of a contrived arrangement and that imputing income was proper for determining maintenance.
family law
Ashley v. IM STEEL, INC.
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010-10-26 · cited 4×
In this case, plaintiffs Pat Ashley and Scott Waple sued IM Steel, Inc., Marc Pozan, and related companies under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for unpaid wages and commissions earned while selling steel for Global Steel Trading Corporation (GST) and Belson Scrap & Steel, Inc. After a default judgment against GST and Belson, the trial court ruled that IM Steel was not a successor corporation and that Pozan had no liability for commissions that accrued after the companies made voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors on May 7, 2001. The appellate court affirmed that IM Steel was not liable as a successor and that Pozan bore no responsibility for certain post-assignment commissions tied to IM Steel sales, but reversed the determination that the assignment date automatically cut off Pozan's potential personal liability under the Act for other commissions. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the plaintiffs were employees of GST or Belson and on the remaining issues in the third amended complaint. The core reasoning centered on the legal effect of the creditor assignments, corporate succession rules, and the scope of officer liability under the Wage Payment Act.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory