Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Chicago police officers testified that a group of male teenagers was screaming, making gestures, and throwing bottles at passing vehicles, then retired to the backyard of the location, which was not the defendant’s residence. While in the street, he had been observed holding the right side of his waist area. In the backyard, defendant was heard yelling an expletive and was seen with a gun in his right hand before he dropped it to the ground. The gun was recovered; it had its serial number scratched off and was loaded with three live rounds of ammunition. The defendant testified that police searched the yard, showed him a gun and accused him of dropping it. He denied the accusation. His friend corroborated his version of events, but the defendant was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 24 months of probation for the use conviction, but no sentence was imposed on the latter offense. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the use conviction and remanded for sentencing on the possession conviction, noting that after the conviction, the Seventh Circuit held that 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) is effectively “a flat-ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home” that violates the second amendment, which protects not only right to keep but also the right to “bear” arms. The Illinois Supreme Court said that that the federal decision did not mean that the right to self-defense outside the home is unlimited or is not subject to regulation, but only that the comprehensive ban is unconstitutional. The defendant was also convicted under a statute prohibiting possession of a firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person by one who is under 18 years of age; he was 17. View "People v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Lay, a real estate company, hired a business to send advertising faxes on its behalf by “blast fax,” which sends advertisements to thousands of fax machines cheaply. As a result, Lay became the defendant in a class action filed by Locklear under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The matter settled. A monetary judgment was entered against Lay to be paid only from Lay’s insurance policies. The Act in question provides for $500 in damages for each violation, and, with a putative class of 3,478 in the underlying action, the total damage amount reached $1,737,500, plus costs. Lay’s insurer, Standard, successfully sought a declaration of noncoverage. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the damage provision of the Act allows for punitive damages, which are uninsurable under Illinois law as a matter of public policy. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded, reasoning that the Act is a remedial statute, even though it provides for $500 in liquidated damages per violation. The ban on insurability does not apply.View "Standard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lay" on Justia Law

Chicago officers were on patrol when a man flagged them down. He did not give his name and was not asked for it, but said that there was a “possible gun” in a tan, four-door Lincoln with several persons inside. Shortly thereafter, officers saw a tan, four-door Lincoln, stopped it, and placed the driver in handcuffs. No traffic violations supported the stop. This defendant was a backseat passenger and was ordered out. He “took off running” and dropped a loaded handgun two feet from the car. Defendant was arrested after he fell. The trial court stated that a motion to suppress the gun would not have succeeded and defense counsel did not make such a motion. The defendant was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and received an eight-year prison term. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed. When an ineffectiveness claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion, the defendant must establish prejudice by demonstrating that the unargued motion was meritorious and that a reasonable probability existed that the trial outcome would have been different had the evidence been suppressed. The initial stop effected an illegal seizure of the defendant; the tip was insufficient to justify the stop. However, the defendant could not prove that the gun itself was the fruit of that illegal seizure. The taint of illegality was removed because the chain of causation proceeding from the unlawful conduct was interrupted, by an intervening circumstance: the defendant’s flight. That flight ended the seizure, and the defendant conceded as much. View "People v. Henderson" on Justia Law

McFatridge prosecuted Steidl and Whitlock for 1986 murders and obtained convictions, which were subsequently overturned in federal court. The defendants filed separate federal suits seeking financial recovery against McFatridge, Edgar County, and others. McFatridge sought mandamus to compel Attorney General Madigan to approve payment for litigation expenses he incurred in his defense of the civil lawsuits, under the State Employee Indemnification Act. The Attorney General refused requests for payment, contending that payment was barred under the Act by the allegations of intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct, but that there could be indemnification later if a court or jury should find that there was no such misconduct. The circuit court dismissed the mandamus complaint, but the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal. The statute has a provision that an elected official (such as a State’s Attorney) may choose his or her own defense counsel and have the resulting expenses paid as they are incurred; the provision has no impact on an earlier provision of the Act that allows the Attorney General to decline representation if she determines that the claim is for intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct.BurkeView "McFatridge v. Madigan" on Justia Law

The mother began a relationship with Jason in 2001; J.W. was born in 2002. The couple married in 2003 and divorced in 2006. The court awarded J.W.’s mother custody and Jason visitation. In 2008, the mother married Joe. Months later, DNA testing determined that J.W. was the biological child of Steve, with whom the mother, unbeknownst to Jason, had a one-time sexual encounter in 2001. The mother temporarily separated from Joe, moved, and placed J.W. in school near Steve’s residence. Steve began successful proceedings to legally establish his parentage, but the mother reunited with Joe. They had a child together. Steve’s attempts to have visitation with J.W. were opposed by Jason, who had been presumed to be J.W.’s father until 2008. The circuit court determined that it was not in J.W.’s best interests to have visitation with Steve. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that under section 14(a)(1) of the Parentage Act, the initial burden is on the noncustodial parent to show visitation is in the best interests of the child, using the best-interests standard of section 602 of the Marriage Act, and that the circuit court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.View "In re the Parentage of J.W." on Justia Law

Four years after he was divorced, the ex-husband suffered a workplace injury for which he received a lump-sum settlement of $239,920. He spent most of the money without notifying his ex-wife of the claim or settlement, but she later sought to modify support payments. The oldest of the couple’s children, who had been living with his father, had reached the age of majority, while the younger child, age 14, was living with her mother. The circuit court ordered the ex-husband to pay $47,984, 20% of the entire settlement. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The ex-husband sought to apportion the lump-sum award into monthly amounts (using his life expectancy of 34 years) and base his monthly liability on 20% of the monthly amount. He argued that the minor child would reach the age of majority in a few years, and that monthly payments of 20% of $580.30 ($116.06) would= yield $5,222.70 in total, a significantly smaller amount than awarded by the court. The court said that the ex-husband had not presented sufficient evidence to support a deviation from the statutory guidelines and had never specifically asked for a departure. The trial court was correct to set child support at 20% of the lump sum in the absence of any evidence to support a different amount. View "In re Marriage of Mayfield" on Justia Law

Chicago police responded to a street fight. One yelled “police, stop, stop,” but M.I., then 16, fired multiple gunshots in their direction. A petition to have M.I. adjudicated delinquent was filed, and the state successfully moved to designate the proceedings as an “extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution.” M.I. waived his right to a jury trial. After adjudicating him delinquent the circuit court sentenced him for aggravated discharge of a firearm, to an indeterminate period in the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections, to end no later than his twenty-first birthday. The court also imposed a 23-year adult sentence, stayed pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed. M.I. argued that the hearing on designation as an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding was not held within the statutory time period, but the supreme court held that the statute is directory rather than mandatory. M.I. raised a constitutional vagueness challenge to the statutory provision that a stay of an adult sentence may be revoked for violation of the “conditions” of a sentence. Such a stay was part of the original sentence, and the state is seeking revocation based on a subsequent drug offense, but this was not the provision under which revocation was sought, so M.I. lacked standing for the challenge. M.I. also claimed that there was a due process violation in imposing a 23-year adult sentence, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The court found no Apprendi violation, noting that the extended jurisdiction juvenile statute is dispositional rather than adjudicatory.View "In re M.I." on Justia Law

Hartney, a fuel oil retailer with a home office in Forest View, in Cook County, accepted purchase orders in the Village of Mark, in Putnam County, through a business with which it contracted. No Hartney employees were involved there. By so structuring sales, Hartney avoided liability for retail occupation taxes of Cook County, Forest View, and the Regional Transportation Authority. Hartney’s interpretation of the law was consistent with regulations published at the time. However, The Illinois Department of Revenue determined, through audit, that Hartney’s sales were attributable to the company’s Forest View office, rather than the Mark location reported by the company, and issued a notice of tax liability. Hartney paid penalties of $23,111,939 under protest and filed suit. The court agreed that the bright-line test for the situs of sale is where purchase orders are accepted. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court, court disagreed. The court found the “Jurisdictional Questions” regulations of the Administrative Code inconsistent with the statutes and case law. The legislature has not adopted a single-factor test for the situs of retail activity. The court’s own precedent calls for fact-intensive inquiry where there is a composite of many activities, and the legislature, by consistently employing the “business of selling” language, has effectively invoked that precedent. The Department of Revenue must abate Hartney’s penalties and tax liability for the relevant period because Hartney’s actions were consistent with its regulations in effect at the time.View "Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Village of Forest View" on Justia Law

The Village of Bement, Piatt County, has a five-year contract, under which E.R.H. Enterprises operates and maintains the Village’s potable water facility and parts of its water delivery infrastructure. The Department of Labor issued a subpoena to E.R.H.’s attorney seeing employment records as part of an investigation under the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01. E.R.H. asserted that it was exempt from the Act as a public utility. The trial court ruled in favor of the Department and ordered E.R.H. to provide the requested documents, noting that the company was not regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding that E.R.H. is simply an outside contractor. View "People v. IL Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Mosley was killed in a 2006 drive-by shooting in Chicago. Trial testimony indicated that Mosley had been in a group with Robinson, a member of the Gangster Disciples street gang, and that Pikes and Donagen were in a car that approached the group and began shooting. Pikes and Donagen were members of the rival Four Corner Hustlers gang. They were tried simultaneously before separate juries. Pikes was convicted and received a 27-year prison term. The appellate court reversed, based on the introduction of evidence concerning a previous incident in which only Donagen, was involved. In that incident, a few days before Mosley was killed, Donagen had begun shooting, without success, at Robinson, who was on a scooter. A car containing Gangster Disciples was following the scooter and drove into Donagen. The Illinois Supreme Court did not agree. Because Pike was not involved in the earlier incident, the appellate court should not have applied rules concerning evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant with which he had not been charged. The question is relevance. Evidence of a continuing gang war and motivation for shooting at a group containing a rival gang member was admissible, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.View "People v. Pikes" on Justia Law