Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerned a man charged with multiple offenses, including aggravated domestic battery, based on an incident involving his former partner. The relationship between the two was characterized by recurring conflicts and accusations, leading to several prior incidents of alleged domestic violence. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence of four prior incidents of defendant's alleged violence, one of which resulted in defendant's acquittal in an earlier criminal proceeding. The defendant claimed self-defense and sought to introduce evidence of the complainant’s violent conduct occurring after the charged offenses, as well as evidence of his earlier acquittal.The Circuit Court of Kankakee County allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the four earlier incidents but barred the defendant from presenting evidence of the complainant’s subsequent violent conduct, reasoning that such conduct postdated the charged offenses. The court also excluded evidence of the defendant's prior acquittal, concluding that a not-guilty verdict did not equate to innocence. The jury convicted the defendant on several charges, and he was sentenced to prison. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated the convictions, holding that evidence of the complainant's subsequent conduct was admissible and that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude the acquittal evidence.The Supreme Court of Illinois held that under Illinois Rule of Evidence 405(b)(2), only evidence of the alleged victim’s violent conduct that occurred prior to the charged offense is admissible in battery or homicide cases where self-defense is raised. The court also held that while it was an abuse of discretion to bar evidence of the prior acquittal, the error was harmless given the overall evidence. The appellate court’s judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for consideration of remaining claims. View "People v. Heintz" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was sentenced in 1995 to mandatory natural life imprisonment after being convicted of a third Class X felony, as required by the habitual criminal statute then in effect. His first Class X felony was committed at age 17. In 2021, the Illinois legislature amended the relevant statute to require that a person’s first Class X felony must have been committed at age 21 or older for a mandatory natural life sentence to apply. The defendant sought postconviction relief, arguing that the amended statute should apply to him because his first offense was committed when he was under 21.After his conviction and direct appeal—which was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court—the defendant filed several unsuccessful collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence. Following the 2021 statutory amendment, he filed motions for leave to file successive postconviction petitions in the Circuit Court of Cook County, seeking resentencing under the new law. The circuit court denied the motions, holding that the amendment applied only prospectively and did not impact his sentence.On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the 2021 amendment should be interpreted as a clarification of the original statute and thus applied retroactively, rendering the defendant’s mandatory life sentence invalid since his first offense was committed before age 21.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case and disagreed with the appellate court. The court held that the 2021 amendment to section 5-4.5-95(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections neither applies retroactively nor constitutes a clarification of the law as it existed in 1995. The court concluded that the circuit court properly denied the defendant’s motions for leave to file successive postconviction petitions. The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "People v. Brown" on Justia Law

Residents near a medical-equipment sterilization facility in Willowbrook, Illinois, brought a mass tort action alleging that Griffith Foods International, Inc., and its successor Sterigenics U.S., LLC had emitted ethylene oxide (EtO) for more than 35 years, resulting in cancer and other illnesses. The policyholders held commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, covering 1983-1985, which included a standard pollution exclusion clause. The policyholders sought a declaration in federal court that the insurer had a duty to defend them in the underlying tort litigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage because the EtO emissions were authorized under a permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). National Union appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit, noting conflicting interpretations of Illinois law regarding the relevance of permits to pollution exclusions, certified a question to the Supreme Court of Illinois for clarification.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the certified question. The court held that a permit or regulation authorizing emissions has no relevance in determining the application of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form CGL policy. The holding clarifies that coverage is barred for injuries arising out of the discharge of pollutants regardless of whether the emissions were authorized by a governmental permit. The court explicitly overruled contrary appellate decisions in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp. and Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bible Pork, Inc., and stated that the existence of a permit does not create ambiguity or exception to the pollution exclusion. The certified question was answered accordingly. View "Griffith Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who is a type 1 diabetic, received treatment from the defendants for foot pain following an injury. Over several visits in January 2017, the treating physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics and pain medication, but did not diagnose a fracture. Subsequent evaluation by a podiatrist revealed a dislocated fracture and other breaks in the foot, which ultimately led to multiple surgeries and the amputation of the plaintiff’s left leg below the knee. The plaintiff alleged that the physician misdiagnosed his condition, causing him to continue using the injured foot and suffer further harm.A jury trial was held in the Circuit Court of Adams County, and after six days of testimony, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict for the defendants. During deliberations, the jury sent several notes to the court, including one from a juror who expressed personal belief in the physician’s negligence but agreed to sign the verdict for the defendants to end deliberations. The plaintiff’s counsel moved for a mistrial based on this note, but the trial court denied the motion, gave the jury a supplemental Prim instruction to guide further deliberations, and subsequently polled the jury after the verdict was reached. All jurors affirmed the verdict. The trial court also denied motions for a new trial and for additional polling of jurors.The Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding no abuse of discretion. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial or refusing to conduct additional polling. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment, upholding the verdict for the defendants. View "Schilling v. Quincy Physicians & Surgeons Clinic, S.C." on Justia Law

Gregory Dobbins was wrongfully convicted of possession of a controlled substance in Cook County, Illinois, based on fabricated evidence supplied by a corrupt police sergeant and his team. After serving prison time, Dobbins filed for post-conviction relief, and in April 2022, the circuit court vacated his conviction and the State dismissed the charges against him. Shortly after, Dobbins submitted a petition for a certificate of innocence (COI), which would allow him to seek compensation for his wrongful conviction. However, Dobbins passed away before the scheduled hearing on his COI petition.Following his death, his life partner and estate administrator, Katrina Crawford, moved to substitute herself as petitioner to continue the COI action on behalf of Dobbins’s estate. The circuit court denied this motion and dismissed the COI petition, ruling that the right to a COI is a personal statutory right that does not survive the petitioner’s death. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the circuit court’s decision, reasoning that the COI statute did not permit estates to seek a COI and that a COI action is not a claim for damages that survives under the Survival Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts’ judgments. The court held that a petition for a COI is not an action to recover damages but rather a condition precedent to seeking compensation in the Court of Claims. Because the COI itself does not confer damages, the cause of action does not survive the petitioner’s death under the Survival Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition and denied substitution by the estate. View "People v. Dobbins" on Justia Law

A company sought approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to construct and operate a high-voltage transmission line for renewable energy, running from Kansas through parts of Illinois to Indiana. The applicant, a special purpose entity owned by Invenergy, did not have existing utility assets in Illinois and planned to use a common energy industry “project finance” model—securing long-term contracts and commercial agreements after regulatory approval to finance construction through a combination of debt and equity. The applicant presented testimony regarding its management’s extensive experience with large-scale energy projects and relationships with major lenders, but did not submit traditional financial statements.The ICC reviewed the application, accepted evidence about the applicant’s financing strategy and experience, and imposed a condition that required the applicant to secure full financing for the entire project before beginning any construction on Illinois easement property. The ICC found that the applicant satisfied the statutory requirement to be “capable of financing the proposed construction without significant adverse financial consequences” for the utility or its customers, and issued the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN).On direct administrative review, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reversed the ICC’s grant of the CPCN. The appellate court concluded that the applicant failed to show it could currently finance the project at the time of the certificate’s issuance, and characterized the project finance method as speculative. It held that section 8-406.1(f)(3) of the Public Utilities Act required proof of present financing capability as a condition precedent to granting a CPCN.The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the ICC’s decision. The court held that section 8-406.1(f)(3) does not require an applicant to prove current, present financing capability at the time of certificate issuance. Instead, it requires a showing of capacity to finance without significant adverse financial consequences, which may be established by substantial evidence of future financing ability and industry practices. The case was remanded to the appellate court for further proceedings on unaddressed issues. View "Concerned Citizens & Property Owners v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated battery of a police officer following an incident at Longview Park in Rock Island, Illinois. The events began after the defendant’s ex-wife contacted police out of concern for their daughter’s welfare, based on alarming statements made by the defendant. Police arrived and, after deciding the child should leave with her mother, the defendant became upset and tried to approach his daughter, prompting police intervention. An altercation ensued: one officer pushed the defendant, who pushed the officer’s arm away, and another officer tackled the defendant, after which the defendant wrapped his arm around the officer’s neck. The defendant was charged based on these physical contacts.The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County. During trial, the defendant requested the jury be instructed on self-defense, arguing his actions were a response to excessive force by the officers. The court denied this request, finding the evidence did not support each element required for a self-defense instruction. The jury acquitted the defendant of battery against one officer but convicted him as to the other. The defendant’s posttrial motion challenging the lack of a self-defense instruction was denied.On appeal, the Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed the conviction, applying a two-step inquiry: first, whether there was sufficient evidence of excessive force by police, and second, whether all six elements of self-defense were supported. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction, focusing on the defendant’s subjective belief element.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case to resolve a conflict among appellate courts regarding self-defense instructions in cases involving alleged excessive police force. The court held that the long-standing six-element test for self-defense applies, and found there was some evidence for each element in the record. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing the instruction. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. Vesey" on Justia Law

Two correctional officers witnessed the defendant physically assaulting two women outside a convenience store and intervened to stop the attack. Police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the defendant. He was charged with three counts of aggravated battery, a felony. From the outset, there were questions about the defendant’s fitness to stand trial, leading to repeated delays as the court attempted, unsuccessfully at first, to obtain a fitness evaluation. Ultimately, the defendant was found fit, his counsel withdrew at his request, and he proceeded to represent himself. The court arraigned him, set bond, and scheduled a jury trial, at which he was convicted of aggravated battery.Prior to trial, the defendant never received a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, nor was he indicted by a grand jury, as required by the Illinois Constitution for felony charges. The defendant did not object to this omission before or during trial, nor did he raise it in a posttrial motion. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, concluded that the absence of a preliminary hearing or indictment was a structural error reviewable as second-prong plain error, and it reversed the defendant’s convictions outright.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed whether the trial court’s failure to provide a prompt preliminary hearing constituted second-prong plain error. The court held that, while the trial court’s failure to provide a preliminary hearing was clear error, it did not amount to a structural error or deprive the defendant of a fair trial, given that his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Therefore, the error was subject to harmless error analysis and was not reviewable as second-prong plain error. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the convictions and sentence imposed by the circuit court. View "People v. Chambliss" on Justia Law

Geoffrey P. Seymore was charged with three methamphetamine-related offenses in De Kalb County, Illinois. Upon his initial court appearance, he was granted pretrial release with several conditions, including electronic monitoring. The day after release, Seymore traveled outside his residence to multiple locations, prompting the De Kalb County Sheriff’s Office to file a report alleging he violated the electronic monitoring condition. The State subsequently petitioned for sanctions, requesting 30 days’ imprisonment in the county jail for the violation. The trial court held a hearing, found the violation proven by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered Seymore to serve 30 days in jail, specifying that no good-behavior credit would apply.Following this, Seymore’s public defender filed a motion seeking good-behavior credit under section 3 of the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act for the 30-day jail sanction, but the De Kalb County Circuit Court denied the motion. Seymore appealed, and the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that good-conduct credit should apply to Seymore’s jail sanction and vacated the trial court’s order on that point. The appellate court also found jurisdiction to hear the appeal, relying on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(1), and determined the issue was not moot due to its public importance and likelihood of recurrence.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case. It held that the 30-day jail sanction imposed for violation of a pretrial release condition was not a "sentence" under section 3 of the Behavior Allowance Act, and thus, Seymore was not entitled to good-conduct credit against that sanction. The court determined that only sentences, not sanctions, qualify for such credit under the Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "People v. Seymore" on Justia Law

A consumer brought a lawsuit against a national retail pharmacy chain after receiving electronically printed receipts that displayed the first six and last four digits of her prepaid debit card number when she added funds to her card at one of the chain’s stores. She alleged that the retailer willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing more than the last five digits of her card number, and she claimed this exposed her to a heightened risk of identity theft and invasion of her privacy. The consumer sought to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and requested statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs.The case began in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, where the retailer moved to dismiss, arguing that the consumer lacked standing because she had not alleged an actual injury and was merely a “no-injury” plaintiff. The circuit court denied the motion, reasoning that a statutory violation alone was sufficient for standing under Illinois law, and subsequently granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, with some modifications to the class definition. The retailer petitioned for leave to appeal this certification order. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff had standing based on the three-part test for standing under Illinois law and finding that the violation of FACTA constituted a distinct and palpable injury, fairly traceable to the retailer’s conduct, and capable of being redressed by the requested relief.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reversed both the appellate and circuit courts. The supreme court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because she failed to allege a concrete injury—her asserted risk of future identity theft was deemed too speculative. The court concluded that, without such an injury, the plaintiff could not maintain her individual or class claims under FACTA, and directed the circuit court to dismiss the case for lack of standing. View "Fausett v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law