Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bruns, age 79, drove to a Centralia eye clinic. She did not use the parking lot, but parked on 2nd Street in front of the clinic, as she had on each of nine previous visits. As she walked toward the clinic, Bruns stubbed her toe on a crack in the sidewalk, causing her to fall and injure her arm, leg and knee. She had been looking “towards the door and the steps” of the clinic. Bruns “definitely” noticed the sidewalk defect every time she went to the clinic. Clinic employees had twice contacted the city about the defect, including after a previous accident, and offered to pay to remove the tree that caused it. The city would not authorize removal because of the 100-year-old tree’s historic significance. Bruns sued, arguing that the city should have reasonably foreseen that a pedestrian could become distracted and fail to protect herself against the dangerous condition. The trial court granted the city summary judgment, finding the defect open and obvious. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the summary judgment. The city has miles of sidewalk to maintain; imposing a duty to protect plaintiffs from open and obvious defects would not be justified. View "Bruns v. City of Centralia" on Justia Law

In 2008, Nationwide became the owner of the Barrington Hills property. The Pobudas have owned the adjacent lot since 1986. The northwest corner of the Nationwide property and the adjoining northeast corner of the Pobuda property are 609 feet from Donlea Road. Both would have been landlocked but for a gravel road easement (recorded in 1956) that runs from Donlea Road over other property. The Pobudas allege that access to their property is impossible without crossing the northwest corner of the Nationwide property because utility equipment installed in 1957 and serving both properties and mature trees and shrubs block access on the north line of their property. The Pobudas claim that they, and visitors, have traveled over the northwest corner strip of the Nationwide property during various hours six to seven days each week, for 52 weeks each year, “in an open, visible, notorious, peaceful, uninterrupted adverse manner,” since 1986. They claim that they have regularly plowed snow, mowed grass, filled in low spots, raked leaves, swept debris, picked-up sticks, patched, and seal coated the surface, on that property. The trial court ruled in favor of Nationwide, finding that the claim of prescriptive easement failed because the Pobudas did not establish that their use was “exclusive” to the point of dispossessing the owner. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The Pobudas satisfied the elements of exclusivity and adversity necessary to establish a prescriptive easement. View "Nationwide Fin., L.P. v. Pobuda" on Justia Law

Perez was convicted of first degree murder. The Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed his conviction and sentence in 2009; the Illinois Supreme Court leave to appeal. Perez filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On February 7, 2011, a circuit court judge signed and dated an order dismissing the petition as frivolous and patently without merit. February 7 was the ninetieth day after the petition was filed, 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a). The clerk stamped the order filed on February 8. The appellate court reversed and remanded for second stage proceedings, finding that the dismissal was untimely because it was not entered until it was filed by the clerk, which occurred on the ninety-first day after the petition was filed and docketed. The court stated that, for a judgment to be effective, it must be publicly expressed at the situs of the proceeding; the record did not reflect the presence of any party, counsel, or any other court personnel on February 7, 2011, so that the first public expression of the order was on February 8. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Because section 122-2.1(a) specifically requires “entry” of an order, an order that is signed by the judge during the 90-day period, but not file-stamped until the ninety-first day, is not timely for purposes of section 122-2.1(a). View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

Slepicka, a resident of a Cook County skilled nursing facility, received a notice of involuntary transfer or discharge. A Department of Public Health ALJ held a hearing at the facility. The Department approved the involuntary discharge of Slepicka unless the amount owed was paid in full. The order was mailed from a Sangamon County post office. Slepicka sought judicial review in Sangamon County. The facility moved to dismiss or transfer, arguing that Cook County was the only proper venue. The circuit court ruled that Sangamon County was a proper venue and upheld the order allowing involuntary discharge. The appellate court held that Sangamon County was not a proper venue under Administrative Review Law section 3-104, but rejected a claim that filing the action in an improper venue constituted a jurisdictional defect. The court did not decide the merits, but vacated and remanded with directions to transfer the cause to Cook County. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that Sangamon County was not a permissible venue, but held that circumstance did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to review the Department’s decision. Stating that it would be a waste of resources to require the Cook County court to review the decision again, the court vacated the portion of the judgment that vacated the Sangamon County decision and remanded to the appellate court for decision on the merits. View "Slepicka v. IL Dep't of Pub. Health" on Justia Law

The trial court concluded that section 5-615 of the Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/5-615, was unconstitutional, and ordered a continuance under supervision in a case involving a minor, rejecting a negotiated plea agreement. The minor had been the subject of multiple charges and had failed to appear for court dates. The Illinois Supreme court vacated. The provision at issue grants a State’s Attorney, among others, authority to object to the entry of an order of continuance under supervision in a juvenile case before a finding of guilt. The court noted that juvenile proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal proceedings, a difference which extends to the role of the state. The purposes and objectives of the Juvenile Court Act are protective in nature, to correct and rehabilitate, not to punish, and the Act lists the State’s Attorney among those who would undoubtedly be concerned with the children’s best interests. The State’s Attorney has a duty to see that justice is done not only to the public at large, but to the accused as well. In this case, the state exercised its authority under section 5-615 in accordance with that duty.View "In re Derrico G." on Justia Law

Burge was a Chicago police officer, 1970 to 1993, and served as supervisor of the violent crimes unit. In 1997, Burge was granted pension benefits by the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago. A 2003 civil rights lawsuit alleged torture and abuse by officers under Burge’s command. Burge denied, under oath, having any knowledge of, or participation in, the torture or abuse of persons in custody. In 2008, Burge was convicted of perjury, 18 U.S.C. 1621(1), and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), and sentenced to four and one-half years’ imprisonment. His convictions were affirmed. Burge has not been indicted for conduct which occurred while he was still serving on the Department. In 2011, the Board held a hearing to consider whether, under the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/5-227, Burge’s pension benefits should be terminated because of his federal felony convictions. Section 5-227 states that “[n]one of the benefits … shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as a policeman.” Burge maintained that his felony convictions related solely to the giving of false testimony in a civil lawsuit filed years after his retirement from the force. The divided Board concluded that “the motion was not passed.” “Burge continued to receive benefits. No administrative review was sought. The Attorney General, on behalf of the state, sued Burge and the Board, under section 1-115 of the Pension Code. The trial court held that deciding whether to terminate Burge’s pension was a “quintessential adjudicative function” that rested exclusively within the original jurisdiction of the Board, subject to review under the Administrative Review Law. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the dismissal.Burke View "Madigan v. Burge" on Justia Law

Public Act 97-695 (eff. July 1, 2012), amended section 10 of the State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971, 5 ILCS 375/10, by eliminating the statutory standards for the state’s contributions to health insurance premiums for members of three of the state’s retirement systems. The amendment requires the Director of Central Management Services to determine annually the amount of the health insurance premiums that will be charged to the state and to retired public employees. It is not limited to those who become annuitants or survivors on or after the statute’s effective date. The amendment was challenged by members of the affected entities: State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS), State Universities Retirement System (SURS), and Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), as violation the pension protection clause, the contracts clause, and the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Certain plaintiffs added common-law claims based on contract and promissory estoppel. The Illinois Supreme Court, on direct review, reversed dismissal, stating that health insurance subsidies are constitutionally protected by the pension protection clause and rejecting an argument that only the retirement annuity itself is covered. View "Kanerva v. Weems" on Justia Law

Iris and Steven have two sons, Nathaniel, born in 1997, and Jacob, born in 1999. Iris filed a divorce petition. The court entered an agreed judgment dissolving the marriage, providing for unallocated maintenance and child support, joint custody, and that Steven would provide the medical insurance for the children and cover 50% of their out-of-pocket medical and dental costs. Steven and Iris frequently returned to court and in 2010 the court granted temporary physical custody to Steven, limited Iris to supervised visitation, and made a one-time reduction in the amount Steven was paying for child support. Steven filed a petition under 750 ILCS 5/510, asking that his obligation to pay child support to Iris be terminated. Steven was required to pay $700 per month “based upon the current parenting schedule.” Steven subsequently asked the court to order Iris to pay child support to him or to temporarily terminate the obligation on the grounds that the boys’ schedules eliminated any expenses Iris might have. The trial court entered an agreed order which specified that Steven was to have “the sole care, custody, control and education” of the boys. Iris was granted visitation with Nathan for dinner on Wednesdays. With Jacob, she had weekly visits from Monday to Wednesday mornings, plus alternating weekends. Steven earned $150,000 per year while Iris earned than $10,000 per year. The court ordered Steven to pay Iris child support of $600 per month and made him “solely responsible for all uncovered medical, dental, orthodontia, psychological and optical expenses for the children.” The appellate court rejected Steven’s contention that section 505 does not authorize orders to pay child support to noncustodial parents and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Steven to pay child support, but that the award $600 per month, was not justified by the record. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the authority of the circuit court to order Steven to pay child support and remanded for a hearing regarding the amount. The court reversed modification of the support order requiring Steven to pay the full amount of any of the children’s medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance.View "In re Marriage of Turk" on Justia Law

The day after N’s birth, the baby’s mother, Nichole, and her boyfriend, Alfred, executed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP), expressly imposing responsibility on Alfred to provide financial support. The VAP did not grant Alfred a right to custody or visitation, but it did provide him the right to seek custody or visitation. Alfred was also entitled to notices of adoption proceedings. Both Nichole and Alfred had the right to rescind the VAP within 60 days. The VAP explicitly waived Alfred’s right to genetic testing. Three days later, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took N into protective custody. DCFS filed a petition alleging juvenile neglect, identifying Nichole as N’s mother and Alfred as N’s father. The circuit court entered an order for temporary shelter care, placed N in the custody of DCFS, appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), entered an order identifying Alfred as the “legal” father based on the VAP, and appointed separate counsel for Nichole and Alfred. Following genetic testing, the court granted the state’s motion and dismissed Alfred, based on evidence that he is not N’s biological father. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state did not have standing in a juvenile neglect proceeding (705 ILCS 405/1-1) to challenge the paternity of a man who signed a VAP under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/1). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re N.C., a Minor" on Justia Law

Powell was adjudicated a disabled adult due to severe mental disabilities in 1997. His parents, Perry and Leona, were appointed as co-guardians of Powell’s person, but were not appointed as guardians of his estate. In 1999, Perry died following surgery. Leona engaged the Wunsch law firm to bring a claim against the doctors and hospital, Leona was appointed special administratrix of Perry’s estate. Wunsch filed a complaint under the Wrongful Death Act on behalf of Leona individually and as administratrix estate. The estate’s only asset was the lawsuit. A 2005 settlement, after attorney fees and costs, amounted to $15,000, which was distributed equally between Leona, Emma (the couple’s daughter) and Powell. The settlement order provided that Powell’s share was to be paid to Leona on Powell’s behalf. Leona placed both shares into a joint account. The probate court was not notified. Wunsch had referred the action to attorney Webb, for continued litigation. Emma waived her rights under a second settlement, Leona and Powell each received $118,000. A check was deposited into the joint account. The order did not provide that Powell’s was to be administered under supervision of the probate court and Powell did not have a guardian of his estate. Wunsch purportedly advised that it was “too much trouble” to go through the probate court for funds every time Leona needed money for Powell. In 2008, Emma petitioned to remove Leona as guardian of Powell’s person. The probate court appointed Emma as guardian of Powell’s person and the public guardian as guardian of his estate. Leona had withdrawn all but $26,000 and provided no accounting. The public guardian sued the attorneys and Leona. The trial court dismissed as to the attorneys, finding that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege defendants owed Powell a duty and to allege proximate cause. The appellate court determined that an attorney retained by a special administrator of an estate to bring a wrongful death action for the benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin owed a fiduciary duty to those beneficiaries and remanded, with respect to the second settlement. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.View "In re the Estate of Powell" on Justia Law