Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mancini Law Group sent a commercial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (5 ILCS 140/1) to the Schaumburg Police Department seeking disclosure of all traffic accident reports for all motor vehicle accidents that occurred within the Village between June 30, 2017, and July 13, 2017. The Department provided redacted accident reports, asserting that FOIA section 7(1)(b) exempted driver’s license numbers, personal telephone numbers, home addresses, and personal license plates; the Department relied upon section 7(1)(c) in redacting dates of birth and policy account numbers. The names of drivers and witnesses were unredacted.The circuit court held that the Department had established that the information at issue was exempt and rejected Mancini’s argument that the Department was precluded from asserting that the information was exempt because it voluntarily provided unredacted traffic accident reports to LexisNexis, a third-party vendor approved by the state for assisting the Department with its Illinois Vehicle Code mandatory reporting obligations.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The Department is not precluded from asserting that the redacted information is exempt under sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c). An Illinois public body does not have the ability to waive an individual’s interest in his personal or private information that is contained in a document subject to a FOIA request. it is irrelevant whether the Department could have chosen to fulfill its mandatory reporting obligations in a different way. View "Mancini Law Group, P.C. v. Schaumburg Police Department" on Justia Law

Chicago police officer Luzadder and his partner were on patrol at 11:36 p.m. when they received a dispatch stating that an anonymous person reported that two white females were walking with a white male wearing a black hoodie, who “was swinging at the females” and “has a gun” near a particular intersection. A second call reported that the group had moved north. Minutes later, at the second location, Luzadder saw Carter, a white male, wearing the described clothing, holding his waistband. Luzadder did not see two women nor did he see Carter violate any laws. Luzadder believed that Carter was attempting to conceal a firearm. Luzadder, with a hand on his service weapon, ordered Carter to raise his hands, patted down Carter over his clothes, and felt what he thought was the handle of a handgun. He lifted Carter’s shirt and recovered a revolver from Carter’s waistband. Luzadder arrested Carter, who was charged with being an armed habitual criminal, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon.The circuit court denied his motion to suppress. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Carter’s motion and his nine-year sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part. The officers had the necessary reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The court otherwise vacated. The state failed to prove Carter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of armed habitual criminal; the other convictions were merged into that conviction. View "People v. Carter" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs alleged that the doctors negligently failed to recognize that Thomas was pregnant before performing elective surgery on her and administering anesthesia, pain medication, and antibiotics, resulting in irreversible injury to the fetus. Thomas was subsequently informed by another physician that the fetus would not survive to term and the pregnancy should be terminated. Thomas had a lawful, consensual abortion. Because the abortion would not have occurred but for the doctors’ negligent conduct and the injuries suffered by the fetus, plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ negligence “ultimately caused the death of” the fetus.Responding to a question certified by the trial court, the appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court held that the Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/2.2, does not bar a cause of action against a defendant for fetal death if the defendant knew or had a medical reason to know of the pregnancy and the alleged malpractice resulted in a non-viable fetus that died as a result of a lawful abortion with requisite consent. Section 2.2 addresses only the liability of the doctor who performs the abortion, not the liability of other physicians, and does not state that abortion is a superseding cause, as a matter of law, where a physician tortiously injures a fetus in a separate medical procedure. View "Thomas v. Khoury" on Justia Law

Julie arrived at Carle Hospital on September 14, 2018, after swallowing batteries in an apparent suicide attempt. Carlefiled a petition for Julie’s emergency admission by certification to a mental health facility, Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/1-100) on October 5. Julie argued the petition was untimely filed, claiming that she had been medically cleared on September 28 yet remained “detained involuntarily” and that sections 3-604 and 3-610 require that a petition or certificate, be executed within 24 hours of involuntary detention. The Champaign County circuit court ordered her involuntarily committed for no more than 90 days.The appellate court found that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applied and affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The section 3-610 24-hour deadline starts upon admission of a respondent under article VI and ends with the proper execution of a second examination and certificate. Admission under article VI occurs no sooner than when the petition and first certificate are properly executed. The 24-hour deadline starts upon detention based on a petition alone and ends when a certificate is furnished to or by the facility. Carle never purported to detain Julie on the basis of a petition alone nor did Julie allege that she was detained on the basis of a petition alone. Section 3-604 does not apply to this case. View "In re Julie M." on Justia Law

Schoonover was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault against his niece, M.L. The prosecution alleged Schoonover, who was over the age of 17, committed “act[s] of contact” with the victim, M.L., who was under the age of 13. Before M.L.’s testimony, the trial court indicated its intention to have the courtroom cleared except for M.L.’s family members and the media during M.L.’s testimony, barring Schoonover’s family members (Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/115-11).The appellate court majority reversed Schoonover’s convictions and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court committed second-prong plain error for failing to inquire as to whether the spectators removed from the courtroom during the minor’s testimony had a direct interest in the case.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding no clear or obvious error under section 115-11 or the sixth amendment. The plain language of section 115-11 is clear: the trial court need only formulate an opinion as to whether the spectators being excluded have a direct interest in the case. The determination as to whether a direct interest exists is left to the discretion of the court. Section 115-11 is constitutional and the trial court comported with its requirements and limitations. View "People v. Schoonover" on Justia Law

The circuit court of Cook County adjudicated Z.L. and Z.L.’s siblings abused and neglected minors under the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3) and made the minors wards of the court. The appellate court reversed the findings of abuse and neglect and remanded for compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. 1912(a).The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, rejecting arguments that the state failed to prove Z.L. was a victim of abusive head trauma and that the court’s finding that Z.L. was physically abused was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s conclusion that the mother was unable, at that time, to parent the children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court remanded for a determination of whether there was compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Although the record disclosed that the state sent notification to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 20, 2019, there is no evidence as to what has transpired in connection with this notice since that time. View "In re Z.L." on Justia Law

In 2015, Betsy filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage from Stephen. The parties married in 2000 and had no children. In 2016, the circuit court entered judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement, stating that Betsy would receive monthly of $5,000.00 for 48 months and thereafter would receive 48 months of payments in decreasing amounts. “Said maintenance payments shall be nonmodifiable pursuant to Section 502(f) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.” In 2018, Stephen filed a petition to modify the judgment to terminate or modify his maintenance obligation. Stephen asserted that the maintenance obligation was not truly nonmodifiable because it did not specifically provide, as required by the Marriage Act, “that the non-modifiability applies to amount, duration, or both.” He asserted that a change in circumstances necessitated the modification.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate and the circuit court in holding that section 502(f) allows parties to make maintenance entirely nonmodifiable or to select a single aspect of the obligation, amount, or duration, to make nonmodifiable and that the settlement agreement showed the parties intended to make the maintenance obligation nonmodifiable in both amount and duration. Stephen cannot now avoid that obligation based on changed circumstances. View "In re Marriage of Dynako" on Justia Law

Sandra and Mark were married in 1992. In 2014, Sandra filed for divorce. The couple had five children; three were then minors. While the divorce was pending, Mark’s mother died; he inherited approximately $615,000. The inheritance included checking accounts and investment accounts, the majority being held in two individual retirement accounts (IRAs).In the divorce judgment, the circuit court excluded Mark’s inheritance in calculating his child support and maintenance obligations under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504, 505. The circuit court subsequently certified a question for interlocutory review: “Whether inherited mandatory retirement distributions are income for purposes of child support and maintenance calculations.” The appellate court reframed the question and held that mandatory distributions or withdrawals taken from an inherited IRA containing money that has never been imputed against the recipient for the purposes of maintenance and child support calculations constitute “income.” The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Classifying the distributions and withdrawals as income does not constitute impermissible double counting because the inherited IRAs had not been previously imputed to Mark as income for support purposes. Mark’s nonmarital mandatory distributions and withdrawals received and reinvested in his own retirement accounts are not excluded from the statutory definition of “income.” View "In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell" on Justia Law

Jill, age 42, died two days after seeking treatment at Mercy’s emergency department. A postmortem examination by the medical examiner indicated that Jill died from myocarditis resulting from sepsis; Jill’s blood cultures showed that MRSA bacteria was present in Jill’s blood. At the request of Jill’s family, Bryant performed a second autopsy and concluded that Jill’s cause of death was acute and chronic congestive heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy. Bryant’s report did not indicate that Jill had myocarditis or sepsis. Her estate sued for wrongful death and medical negligence, arguing that Jill died of toxic shock syndrome and sepsis caused by a retained tampon, which could have been treated by antibiotics if timely diagnosed. A jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting an argument that the circuit court abused its discretion and denied the plaintiff a fair trial by refusing to issue a nonpattern jury instruction on the loss of chance doctrine and a pattern jury instruction on informed consent. When a jury is instructed on proximate cause through a pattern jury instruction, the lost chance doctrine, as a form of proximate cause, is encompassed within that instruction. The plaintiff never alleged that Jill consented to medical treatment without being adequately informed and that the treatment injured her. The plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction did not identify any treatment Jill received or any injury she received from that treatment. View "Bailey v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center" on Justia Law

Doe sued Parillo based on physical and sexual assaults and the violation of an order of protection. The following 30 months involved multiple delays and disputes. Parillo was sanctioned several times for failing to answer the complaint, failing to cooperate in discovery, and for his (and his attorney’s) failure to appear for scheduled hearings. In 2019, following a trial that Parillo and his attorney did not attend, a jury awarded Doe $200,000 for “Loss of Normal Life,” $200,000 for “Pain and Suffering,” $200,000 for “Emotional Distress,” $200,000 for “Future Loss of Normal Life,” and $200,000 for “Future Pain and Suffering,” totaling $1 million in compensatory damages, plus $8 million in punitive damages.In ruling on a post-trial motion, the court stated “[T]he defendant lied in an affidavit to seek a trial continuance, the defense attorneys failed to follow a well-known and well-understood circuit court rule ... and the defense attorneys and defendant abandoned the trial ... defendant’s attempt should read, ‘A Conspiracy to Undermine the Integrity of the Judicial Process—or— How Not to Get a Trial Continuance in the Law Division.’ First, lie; second, don’t follow rules; and third, if the first and second don’t work, don’t show up for trial.” The appellate court reduced Doe’s punitive damages to $1 million. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court judgments. The punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive. View "Doe v. Parrillo" on Justia Law