Remaining Civil Opinions For 2012 from the Illinois Supreme Court

more+
less-

With the November term in full swing and the holidays rapidly approaching, the Illinois Supreme Court has announced that the Court expects to file opinions on three remaining days in 2012: November 29, December 13 and December 28.

The Court’s civil docket is largely up to date, accounting for the usual time between argument and opinion. Every civil case on the January and March argument dockets has been decided. One remains from the May term, and we will likely see that opinion soon: 

  • Wilson v. Edward Hospital, No. 112898 – Are actual agency and apparent agency separate claims for purposes of the res judicata doctrine and the prohibition against claim-splitting set forth by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 462 (2008) and Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996), so that summary judgment entered on the actual agency claims in plaintiffs’ initial suit bars plaintiffs’ apparent agency claims in a refiled suit, even in the face of a ruling that there is a question of fact as to the apparent agency claims?

As readers of The Appellate Strategist will recall, the Court’s September term was especially heavy in civil arguments, with thirteen cases being argued, presenting a number of challenging issues. Based on the Court’s experience in recent years, we would expect between three and six cases from the September term to be handed down in December.  The cases are:

Call of the Docket for September 13:

  • Hernandez v. Bernstein, No. 113054 -- (1) Is an action for legal malpractice based on one factual theory one claim for purposes of res judicata, or two? (2) Does a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the remainder of his claim render the trial court's order dismissing one of plaintiff's factual theories final for purposes of res judicata? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.

Call of the Docket for September 18:

  • Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, No. 113107 et seq. – (1) Does the doctrine of subject matter waiver for the attorney-client privilege extend from litigation to business negotiations? (2) Can documents shared among partners in a business negotiation be protected by the work product privilege? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Cooney v. Rossiter, No. 113227 – (1) Was the plaintiffs' action barred pursuant to res judicata by the earlier Federal action, even though the earlier Federal action was a class, rather than an individual claim? (2) Did a court-appointed psychological evaluator in a custody hearing have absolute immunity from suit for alleged misconduct in connection with his opinions? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Carr v. Koch, No. 113414 – Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Illinois education funding system as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Illinois constitution? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, No. 113419 – (1) Is a judgment of foreclosure final and appealable, or must an appeal await a final order approving the sale and distributing the proceeds? (2) Is an order of foreclosure immediately appealable when standing is challenged on the grounds that the order is void? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Mathis v. Mathis, No. 113496 – In a bifurcated dissolution proceeding, when a grounds judgment has been entered, and when there is a lengthy delay between the date of entry of the grounds judgment and the hearing on ancillary issues, is the appropriate date for valuation of marital property the date of dissolution or a date as close as practicable to the date of trial of the ancillary issues? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.

Join us after the jump for the remaining cases.

Call of the Docket for September 19:

  • Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, No. 113569 – Does the Farm Nuisance Act, 740 ILCS 70/1, bar a nuisance suit where defendants started a cattle operation on property across from an unoccupied farmhouse, and several years later, plaintiffs demolished the farmhouse and constructed a new family home? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • In re Estate of Boyar, No. 113655 – (1) Is the doctrine of election recognized with respect to trusts? (2) If so, should the doctrine be applied when the property accepted was allegedly nominal in value? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Rodriquez v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, No. 113706 – Where an action for attorneys fees under 5 ILCS 100/10-55(c) is not brought simultaneously with a challenge to an administrative rule, is a subsequent action for fees barred as res judicata? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., No. 113812 – Did the trial court err by denying defendant's motion for dismissal pursuant to forum non conveniens of an asbestos injury claim brought by a non-resident of Illinois? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.

Call of the Docket for September 20:

  • Mashal v. The City of Chicago, No. 112341 – (1) What is a 'decision on the merits' under 735 ILCS 5/2-802 that would preclude the entry of a class decertification order? (2) Whether, in a class action case challenging defendants' practice of issuing parking or standing violations to taxicab drivers and others by mail and without any personal service on the driver or placement of the citation on the offending vehicle, a prior Judge's ruling that the defendants' 'practice of sending a second notice of a parking or standing violation prior to an initial notice being either hand delivered to the driver of the vehicle or affixed to the vehicle is violative of the plain language of the statute and the ordinances' constitutes a decision on the merits under section 2-802 of the Code such that a subsequent judge presiding in the case lacks the authority to decertify the class? (3) Whether, in a class action case challenging defendants' practice of issuing parking or standing violations to taxicab drivers and others by mail and without any personal service on the driver or placement of the citation on the offending vehicle, a prior Judge's ruling that denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the application of their affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, res judicata, the collateral attack doctrine, and the voluntary payment doctrine constitutes a decision on the merits under section 2-802 such that a subsequent Judge presiding in the case lacks the authority to decertify the class? (4) Whether, in a class action case challenging defendants' practice of issuing parking or standing violations to taxicab drivers and others by mail and without any personal service on the driver or placement of the citation on the offending vehicle, a Judge's ruling that granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the application of the statute of limitations constitutes a decision on the merits under section 2-802 such that a subsequent Judge presiding in the case lacks the authority to decertify the class. For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • Ferguson v. Patton, No. 112488 -- (1) Does Section 2-56-040 of the Chicago Municipal Code authorize the Inspector General of the City of Chicago to hire private counsel to enforce subpoenas? (2) May the Inspector General sue the Corporation Counsel of Chicago to enforce subpoenas? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.
  • The Hope Clinic for Women v. Adams, No. 112673 et seq. -- Did the trial court properly dismiss an action challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, brought solely under state law, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' equal protection and due process claims were barred by collateral estoppel, and the plaintiffs' privacy claim was barred because Federal privacy law would require dismissal, and state privacy protections were interpreted in lockstep with Federal law? For our preview of the case, see here. For our report on the oral argument, see here.

 

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Constitutional Law 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 »