Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Based on the six-year statute of repose, (735 ILCS 5/13–214.3(c), the trial court dismissed a malpractice claim alleging that defendant negligently prepared a quitclaim deed in 1997 that failed to convey real estate to plaintiff and her husband as joint tenants with right of survivorship. In 2007, when her husband died, plaintiff discovered that the property was still in trust and that ownership would pass to her stepson. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal. The statute of repose is not tied to discovery of injury; the period of repose in a legal malpractice case begins to run on the last date on which the attorney performs the work involved in the alleged negligence. View "Snyder v. Heidelberger" on Justia Law

The defendant, charged with the attempted robbery death of a cab driver, agreed to plead guilty and receive a 28-year sentence on the charge of first degree murder and a 4-year sentence on the charge of possession of contraband while in a penal institution, to be served consecutively. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court admonished him that the sentencing range was 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment. The state presented a factual basis for both pleas that included use of a gun. After sentencing the court denied a motion to vacate the plea. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that defendant was subject to a mandatory 15-year enhancement for being armed with a gun, so that the mandatory minimum sentence was 35 years. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for trial, stating that the trial court could not impose a sentence that did not include the enhancement. View "People v. White" on Justia Law

The trial court dismissed a third amended class action complaint filed in connection with power outages during severe storms. The complaint alleged negligence, breach of contract, and violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1). The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The electric utility's tariff precludes an award of damages; even if such claims were not barred, jurisdiction over matters relating to the utility's service and infrastructure lies with the Illinois Commerce Commission. The Consumer Fraud Act claim alleged that that the company knew or should have known that it failed to sufficiently establish policies and procedures to prevent controllable interruptions of power and to timely respond to those interruptions, in order to protect the health, safety, comfort and convenience of its customers, including those on the life support registry. The claim failed because the company is not required to prioritize those on the life support registry and does not intend that those on the registry rely on it doing so. View "Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co." on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, alleging failure to diagnose apendicitis, the court gave Civil Jury Instruction 105.01 (2006), which refers to a "reasonably careful," as opposed to a "reasonably well-qualified" (the 2005 instruction) professional. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the jury instruction does not accurately state the law, but affirmed. The 2006 instruction eliminated the distinction between institutional negligence, which can be proven without expert testimony, and professional negligence, which requires expert testimony. The hospital was not prejudiced by the instruction because expert testimony was presented in connection with a vicarious liability claim. The court rejected the hospital's argument that the instruction was confusing and allowed jurors to consider personal knowledge in determining what is reasonable. View "Studt v. Sherman Health Systems" on Justia Law

Based on faxes received in 2002, advertising discount travel, plaintiff filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. 227. The trial court denied motions to dismiss, but certified questions to the appellate court. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the TCPA forms part of the law enforceable in Illinois courts without the need for the Illinois General Assembly to enact enabling legislation to permit private claims. The appellate court's discussion of the assignability of TCPA claims amounted to an advisory opinion because the amended complaint under discussion alleged that the plaintiff at issue had, itself, received junk faxes from the defendant. The court remanded for consideration of whether the claim is subject to the Illinois two-year limitations period for actions including personal injuries and statutory penalties (735 ILCS 5/13-202) or the four-year limitations period for federal civil actions (28 U.S.C. 1658). View "Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc." on Justia Law

Tax valuation objection cases, filed between 2000 and 2005, settled with a 2006 agreed order under which the Cook County treasurer was to refund overpaid taxes with interest. The Property Tax Code interest rate was 5% until December 31, 2005; legislation (35 ILCS 200/23-20) effective January 1, 2006, provides for interest of the lesser of 5% or the Consumer Price Index. The supreme court held: The circuit court retained jurisdiction to award judgment interest after an appeal was filed. Because the treasurer had not appealed the issue of interest on two refunds, the court upheld judgment requiring that interest be paid at 5% from the date the taxes were paid through December 31, 2005 and based on the lower CPI rate from January 1, 2006, forward. The court properly applied the amendment. An objector did not forfeit judgment interest by failing to raise the issue before the trial court. The Property Tax Code controls interest that must be paid until there is a full refund of taxes paid in protest; if interest on the tax refund is not paid in full, judgment interest under the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed on the amount of outstanding interest.

The regional board of school trustees dissolved a school district, partially located in Montgomery County, and annexed it to a district previously located entirely in Sangamon County. About 99.7 percent of the reconstituted district is in Sangamon County and the voters of that county had approved a referendum under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL)(35 ILCS 200/18â185); the voters in Montgomery County had not. A taxing district subject to PTELL may not ordinarily extend taxes at a rate that exceeds the previous yearâs extension by more than 5%, or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less, without referendum approval. The district, wanting to issue bonds to finance improvements, sought a declaration that PTELL did not apply. Reversing the trial and appellate courts, the supreme court held that the entire district remains subject to the PTELL.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to a murder charge. The trial court imposed a sentence of 33 years and ordered him to pay $200 for DNA testing. The appellate court rejected an argument that the court lacked authority to impose the order because the defendant's DNA was already on file. The supreme court affirmed in all other respects, but reversed the DNA order, holding that 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3 authorizes a court to order the taking, analysis, and indexing of a qualifying defendant's DNA only if that DNA is not already in the database.

While the defendant was on probation following conviction for retail theft, police and probation officers searched his residence and found marijuana and cocaine. The trial court denied a motion to suppress, convicted the defendant of unauthorized possession, and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. The appellate court reversed. The supreme court reversed, affirming the conviction. By agreeing, in his probation order, to suspicionless searches and consenting to the use of anything found during such a search as evidence, the defendant waived his Fourth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff sought damages based on the death of her 18-year-old son in an automobile accident after allegedly consuming alcoholic beverages at defendants' residence. The trial court dismissed. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of counts IV through VI, but reversed and remanded as to counts I through III, which were based on a theory that defendants voluntarily undertook to prevent underage drinking and negligently performed that duty. The Supreme Court reversed, characterizing the case as involving "nonfeasance." Defendants owed no duty to prohibit voluntary possession or consumption of alcohol, and took no action to do so pursuant to their verbalized intent to monitor, which was communicated only to their son.