Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

June 20, 2009

Chiropractor Waives Unjust Enrichment Claim For Failure To File Cross-Appeal

Richard Martis, a chiropractor, treated Water Management Corp.’s employee for an on-the-job injury. Water Management’s worker compensation insurer was Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company. Martis was not in Grinnell’s preferred provider network. He submitted his bill to Grinnell for the treating the employee. Grinnell discounted the bill and paid Martis as if he had preferred provider agreement with Grinnell.

Apparently angered for being shorted, Martis sued Grinnell. He alleged actions for conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of contract, and asked the trial court to certify the case as a class action. The trial court dismissed everything except the contract action, and also certified class action status.

Grinnell appealed, aguing that the class should not have been certified because Martis’s breach of contract claim did not state a proper cause of action. The Third District Illinois Appellate Court ruled that Martis was not a third-party beneficiary of Water Management’s worker compensation insurance policy with Grinnell, so Martis could not sue for breach of that contract.

June 15, 2009

American Access Casualty Appeal Waived By Invited Error

by Steven R. Merican

Christine Siwek had an accident when she was driving Jerrold Erickson’s car. Christine told the Illinois Department of Transportation about the accident, and identified American Access Casualty Company as her insurer.

American told the Department that Christine’s policy had been canceled.

Christine claimed she never received a policy cancellation, so she sued American Access. She asked the trial court for a declaration that her policy with American Access covered her for the accident.

June 13, 2009

Inmate’s Motion Attacking Void Judgment Tolls Time To Appeal

by Steven R. Merican

An inmate in a supermax prison sued prison officials in a mandamus action. The inmate sought an order preventing controlled feeding and requiring a nurse to attend to the inmate’s self-inflicted wounds outside of his cell.

The prison officials asked for, and in July 2006 received, a dismissal of the complaint. Before that dismissal order was entered, and apparently unknown to the trial court judge, the inmate had filed a motion asking for a substitution of the trial court judge.

The court clerk did not send the parties the dismissal order for several months. In November 2006, the inmate asked the trial court, which by that time had substituted another judge, to vacate the order dismissing the case. The inmate argued that his request to substitute the original trial judge was made before the dismissal order had been entered. The inmate’s request to vacate finally was considered in September 2007. The trial court denied the request to vacate the dismissal order. The inmate appealed the denial of his motion to vacate.

June 8, 2009

Paschen and Chicago Water Reclamation District Get Deferential Standard Of Review In Walsh’s Try To Prevent Bid Award

by Steven R. Merican

Walsh Construction Company and II In One Contractors formed a joint venture to bid on a contract being offered by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. The Walsh joint venture bid on the contract, but did not sign the required D-3 sheet. Although Walsh’s bid was about $10 million less than any other bid, the contract was awarded to a joint venture led by F. H. Paschen.

Walsh sued, and asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the contract award to Paschen. After a two-day trial, the trial court denied Walsh’s request for an injunction and granted Pashen’s and the Water District’s request for a directed finding.

Walsh appealed, and the parties argued about the proper standard of review. Walsh asserted the trial court’s decision entailed legal issues only, so the proper review standard was de novo, which gives the trial court decision no deference. Paschen and Water District argued for “a manifest weight of the evidence” standard, noting that the [trial] court indeed considered the weight of the testimony and evidence presented in making its decision and did not, as Walsh insists, simply deny the request for preliminary injunction as a matter of law.”

June 6, 2009

Plain Error Doctrine Prevents Waiver Of Appellate Argument Against Involuntary Administration Of Psychotropic Drugs

by Steven R. Merican

James S. appealed from a trial court order that allowed psychotropic drugs to be administered to James against his wishes.

A basis of James’s appeal was that the order should be reversed because the circuit court did not state findings of fact to support emergency administration of psychotropic drugs, and therefore did not comply with the statutory requirement. “The respondent [James] argues that the circuit court’s error here is particularly problematic because the evidence does not obviously reveal nor did the circuit court clarify under what provision of section 2-107.1(a-5)(4)(B) of the Code (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a-5)(4)(B) (West 2006)) the circuit court authorized the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, i.e., whether the respondent exhibited deterioration in ability to function, suffering, or threatening behavior.”

The State argued that James waived the argument because he did not raise it in his motion for reconsideration.

May 21, 2009

De Novo Standard Of Review For Judgment Based On Contract Construction

by Steven R. Merican

Jeffrey Covinsky was CEO of Hannah Marine Corporation. He sued the company after it refused to pay him pursuant to a “golden parachute” clause in his employment contract. In turn, Hannah counterclaimed against Covinsky for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court gave Covinsky summary judgment on his claim. Hannah appealed.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court analyzed the proper standard of review of a summary judgment in a contract action. The appellate court acknowledged the usual review standard for summary judgments is de novo (circuit court ruling gets no deference). However, “Whether a breach of contract has occurred generally is not a legal question subject to de novo review, but rather a question of fact which will not be disturbed unless the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

In this case, the trial court’s ruling was based only on an interpretation of the contract, and no question of fact was involved. So the appellate court chose the de novo standard. Here’s the court’s explanation:

May 14, 2009

Re-Opening Estate Decided Under Manifest Weight Standard

by Steven R. Merican

Kathleen Savio’s death in 2003 first was ruled by the coroner to be an accident. But after her body was exhumed and additional autopsies conducted in 2007, the coroner ruled that Kathleen’s death likely was a homicide. Kathleen’s father and siblings then asked the court to reopen Kathleen’s estate, to have the executor removed, and to name the father and one of the siblings as new executors. The trial court granted that request.

Kathleen’s former husband, Drew Peterson, and the executor, James Carroll, appealed. The parties argued over the proper standard of appellate review. Peterson and Carroll asserted that the trial court’s ruling should get no deference on appeal.

But the Third District Illinois Appellate Court sided with the father and sibling, and ruled that the proper standard of review of an order to reopen an estate is “the manifest weight of the evidence.” Here’s the court’s analysis:

May 6, 2009

Attorney Sanctions In Seventh Circuit Compared

by Steven R. Merican

For a statistical comparison among the federal appellate courts of sanctions orders against attorneys, take a peek at the Fall 2008 edition of the Seventh Circuit Review. The analysis concludes: “The Seventh Circuit issued the fourth-most sanctions overall and issued the most serious sanctions. In the end, the data suggests that the Seventh Circuit may be ‘nitpicking’ to a certain degree, but that there are other circuits that are nearly as critical of attorneys.”

Here’s the whole article by Patrick Austermuehle, “Just a Bunch of Fusspots and Nitpickers? That Pretty Much Sums It Up,” 4 Seventh Cir. Rev. 34.

May 5, 2009

Rules After Remand; Jurisdiction Over Fee Petition After Appeal Notice Is Filed

by Steven R. Merican

Two important rulings arise from this landlord-tenant dispute.

After remand from the appellate court — which did not include instructions for how to proceed — the tenant asked the trial court for leave to amend its complaint to add a new item of damages. The trial court denied the tenant’s request because, it said, it did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Must the appellate court give specific directions to the trial court in an order of remand? The First District Illinois Appellate Court said “No.” Then what is the trial court’s authority and obligation after the appellate court sends the case back to the trial court? Here’s how the appellate court answered the question, complete with the standard of review:

May 2, 2009

Appeal Of Post-Judgment Motion Not Saved By Rule 303

by Steven R. Merican

Bridgette Glickman, owner of a condominium unit, fell on ice in a stairway at the condo building. She sustained multiple fractures to her ankle. Among others, she sued the condominium association for negligent maintenance of the stairway.

The trial court dismissed Glickman’s complaint against the association because the accident happened before the association elected its first board of managers. The case proceeded against the other defendants − the developer and the designer of the building. Glickman appealed the dismissal of the association within the mandated 30-day deadline. About four months later, she asked the trial court for permission to file an amended complaint against the association.

The trial court denied Glickman’s request to amend, so she made the denial part of her appeal. The First District Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the ruling that Glickman’s request came too late for the trial court to decide. The filing of Glickman’s notice of appeal did not relieve the trial court of jurisdiction. But her failure to file the request to amend within 30 days did. Here’s what the appellate court stated: