Illinois Supreme Court Sets Civil Argument Schedule for May


On Friday the Illinois Supreme Court published its Call of the Docket [pdf] for the May term, and the Court will hear oral argument in five civil cases. The cases, with the issue or issues presented in each, are:

May 11:

Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association,No. 110505 – Are the provisions of the Chicago Condominium Ordinance giving the right to compel production of documents, and authorizing interim awards of attorneys' fees, preempted by purportedly conflicting state law? See Civil Procedure.

May 17:

Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, No. 110882 – (1) Does a petitioner in an individual adjusted standard proceeding before the Illinois Pollution Control Board have a burden of proof with respect to the standards set forth in Section 27(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act? (2) Must the Board make written findings or identify substantive evidence supporting its resolution of the Section 27(a) factors in such a proceeding? (3) Do environmental activist groups have standing to seek judicial review of the Board’s decision in an individual adjusted standard proceeding? See Government Law.

Petersen v. Petersen, No. 110984 – Where a judgment of marital dissolution, ordering the payment of child support, expressly reserves the issue of each party's obligation to contribute to the college or other education expenses of the parties' children, is a subsequent order allocating such expenses a "modification" of the child support order within the meaning of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/510, such that only sums incurred on the notice date of the petition and afterwards may be awarded? See Domestic Relations.

City of Chicago v. Stubhub! Incorporated, No. 111127 – May municipalities such as the City of Chicago require electronic intermediary services to collect and remit amusement taxes on resold tickets? (Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case No. 09-3432, 624 F.3d 363.

Wirtz v. Quinn, No. 111903 – Does Public Act 96-34 violate the single subject rule of the Illinois Constitution? See Government Law.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

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

Written by:


Sedgwick LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.