Illinois Supreme Court Announces Busy Argument Docket for September in Civil Cases

more+
less-
more+
less-
Explore:  Caseloads

This morning, the Illinois Supreme Court announced a busy oral argument docket of twelve civil cases for the September term, the Court's first term of its potentially year-long stay in Chicago. The cases are:

Wednesday, September 11

  • Hooker v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, No. 114811 -- Issues Presented: Do survivors' pensions under the state Pension Act increase when the salary for decedent's position increases, regardless of whether the decedent ever actually received that salary? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Forest View, No. 115130 -- Issue Presented: When a business' operations span multiple counties, where does a retail sale tax place for purposes of the local portion of the state sales tax? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.

Tuesday, September 17

  • Bartlow v. Costigan, No. 115152 -- Issue Presented: Are the administrative fines imposed by the Illinois Department of Labor under the Employee Classification Act unconstitutional? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Gillespie Community Unit School District No. 7 v. Wight & Co., No. 115330 -- Issues Presented: Is a "statute of repose" incorporated into a contract between defendants, an architectural firm, and the plaintiffs enforceable to bar the action? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Carlson, No. 115342 -- Issue Presented: May a condominium owner refuse to pay monthly and/or special assessments, in whole or in part, on the grounds that the condominium board failed to maintain and repair the common elements of the condominium property? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, No. 115469 -- Issues Presented: (1) May a motion pursuant to Section 2-1301(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate a default in a foreclosure suit be made after the sheriff’s sale has already occurred? (2) Did defendant waive her right to make a renewed motion to set aside the default by withdrawing her first motion in return for agreement to temporarily postpone the sale? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • The Board of Education of Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. The Pollution Control Board, No. 115473 -- Issue Presented: May a party challenging the certification of a system as a pollution control facility appeal directly to the Appellate Court pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/41(a), after its challenge is rejected by the Illinois Pollution Control Board? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.

Wednesday, September 18

  • American Access Casualty Co. v. Reyes, No. 115401 -- Issue Presented: Is a clause of an automobile insurance policy excluding all liability coverage for the sole named insured and titleholder on the insured vehicle void as against public policy?
  • The Venable-Newberg Perini Stone and Webster v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, No. 115728 -- Issue Presented: Was a union member who traveled to reach a distant job site a "traveling employee" pursuant to workers' compensation law such that an injury occurring while traveling to work in the morning was compensable? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Schultz v. Performance Lightning, Inc., No. 115738 -- Issue Presented: Does the Income Withholding for Support Act require strict compliance, so that any error or omission in a notice to withhold income in connection with court-ordered support payments is fatal, or is substantial compliance enough? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.
  • Kanerva v. Weems, No. 115811 -- Issues Presented: Do the 2012 amendments to the State Employee Insurance Act, 5 ILCS 375/1, violate (1) the Pension Protection Clause, Ill. Const. Art. XIII, Section 5; (2) the Contracts Impairment Clause, Ill. Const. Art. I, Section 16; (3) separation of powers; or (4) the State Lawsuit Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 5/1? Our detailed summary of the facts and Circuit Court decision is here.
  • Rogers v. Imeri, No. 115860 -- Issue Presented: In a case involving the Insurance Guaranty Fund, if the jury returns a verdict in excess of the statutory maximum, is the setoff for other recoveries made from the verdict, or from the statutory maximum recovery under the Dramshop Act? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here.

 

Topics:  Caseloads

Published In: Environmental Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »