Illinois Supreme and Appellate Court Case Summaries

By Laurence J. Dunford (LJD), Robert Clifford( RJC)  and Timothy J. Joyce(TJJ)
This page contains the current month's summaries, the most recent summaries provided first. 

Click on the case-name link to go directly to the full-text opinion.

Summary headings and authoring Justice (and separate opinion writers) in GREEN.

Case-name link in your browser's LINK COLOR.

Corrected or modified opinions noted by PURPLE headings.


For the previous six months' summaries or to return to the Illinois Court Reports Home Page, click on the link below:

 Illinois Court Reports Home Page  


  Printer Friendly Version

______________________________________________________________________

25 Appellate Court Cases Posted 9-03-10

1. Criminal Law: Affirmed: Plain Error Doctrine and Rule 615 analyzed.  Burden of Persuasion as to two prongs approach to Doctrine is on defendant.  Confrontation clause of Constitution does not abrogate the rules of exception to the hearsay rules.  Reports of post mortem examinations are business records and admissible.  Toomin, J.

No.1-07-2757 People v. Antonio Filed 8-30-10 (LJD)

Here, we revisit whether a defendant’s right of confrontation was abridged by a pathologist’s testimony narrating the examinations and observations of nontestifying experts. Following a jury trial, defendant,  Armando Antonio, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and concealment of a homicidal death and subsequently sentenced to terms of 14 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ imprisonment, respectively.  Defendant now appeals contending: (1) his right to confront witnesses was denied; and (2) he was prejudiced by the introduction of other crimes evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

2.  Consumer Fraud Act/Conversion: Affirmed and Remanded for determination of Attorney's fees: Damages in conversion case and damages under Consumer Fraud Act are not double damages;  Defendant cannot rely on the damages limitation clause where the act causing the damages is intentional;  A showing of unfairness is sufficient to satisfy a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.  Punitive damages for the tort of conversion properly lie where the defendant acts willfully or with such gross negligence to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others.  Attorney's fees provision of the Act includes fees incurred for work on “non-Act claims when the Act claim is so inextricably intertwined with the non-Act claims that it cannot be distinguished.”   Lavin, J.

No.1-08-2203 Griffith v. PS Illinois Trust   Filed 8-27-10 (LJD)

This case involves the fallout from a seemingly simple and usually harmless consumer transaction: the storage of personal items in a commercial storage facility. Making a long story short, defendant PS Illinois  Trust (Public Storage) repeatedly bungled the automatic billing for storage of property, improperly converted and sold the property, while compounding its inexcusable conduct by, among other things,  creating an apparently fictitious lien notice to presumably deflect criticism of its handling of the matter. This simple transaction resulted in complex litigation in which the consumers successfully pursued claims  for compensatory damages, punitive damages and a recovery of attorney fees.

3.  Criminal Law: Affirmed: Rules in claims of ineffective counsel analyzed;  Defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Decisions of trial strategy, such as choice of jury instructions, do not support claim of ineffective counsel. McBride, J.

No. 1-08-2460 People v. Mims  Filed 8-20-10 (LJD)

Following a jury trial, defendant William Mims was found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery for the November 2002 attack of T.A. Subsequently, the  trial court sentenced defendant to natural life as a habitual criminal based on previous convictions. Defendant appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to request that the jury be  instructed on the defense of consent; and (2) failing to object to hearsay testimony of a police officer which retold the victim’s account of the attack.

4.  Pharmacy Negligence: Affirmed: The learned intermediary doctrine has also been applied to exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from giving warnings to patients. The doctrine provides that manufacturers of prescription drugs have a duty to warn prescribing physicians of the drugs’ known dangerous propensities, and the physicians, in turn, using their medical judgment, have a duty to convey the warnings to their patients. Steele, J.

No.1-09-1297  DiGiovanni v. Albertson's, Inc. Filed 8-25-10 (LJD)

This appeal arises from an order of the circuit court dismissing defendant Albertson’s, Inc., d/b/a Osco Drugs (Osco), from a suit filed by plaintiff, Charles DiGiovanni, as special administrator of the estate of  Laverne DiGiovanni (the Estate), with prejudice on the basis that Osco had no duty to warn either the physician or the patient of a potential drug-to-drug interaction under the learned intermediary doctrine. For the following reasons, we affirm.

5.  Insurance Law: Affirmed:  Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they invite the court to decide the issues presented as a matter of law.  If the underlying complaints allege facts within or potentially within policy coverage, the insurer is obliged to defend its insured even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent.  [A]ny doubt with regard to such duty is to be resolved in favor of the insured.  Quinn, J.

No.1-09-1708  Pekin Insurance Company v. Pulte Home Coporation    Filed 8-25-10 (LJD)
 
Defendant Kenneth Kaiser filed a lawsuit against defendants Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte), a homebuilding company, and Jim Kunde Construction, Inc. (Kunde Construction), Pulte’s sewer subcontractor  alleging that he suffered severe and permanent injuries when he fell into an unguarded sewer manhole in the backyard of a home under construction. Pulte tendered its defense of Kaiser’s complaint to plaintiff  Pekin Insurance Company (Pekin), which had issued an insurance policy to Kunde Construction, naming Pulte as an additional insured. Pekin denied the tender and filed this declaratory judgment action.  Pekin and Pulte filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and after a hearing, the trial court denied Pekin’s motion and granted Pulte’s motion, finding that Pekin owned Pulte a defense in the underlying  litigation. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court.

6.  Forcible Detainer: Reversed: A forcible detainer action is a special statutory proceeding that is in derogation of the common law. Therefore, the party requesting this relief must comply  with the requirements of the statute, especially those requirements establishing the court’s jurisdiction. Strict compliance with service of 5 day notice required and slipping notice under the door not sufficient. Steele, J.

No.   1-09-1844 Figueroa v. Deacon   Filed 8-25-10 (LJD)

Following a bench trial, defendants Kathryn Deacon and James Deacon appeal from an order of the circuit court granting possession of rental premises and a money judgment for past due rent and costs in the  mount of $8,782.20 to plaintiff, Mike Figueroa. For the following reasons, we reverse.

7.  Insurance Law/Arbitration: Affirmed in part and Reversed in Part. One is under a duty to learn, or know, the contents of a written contract before he signs it, and is under a duty to determine the obligations which he undertakes by the execution of a written agreement.  Choice of laws clause discussed; Statute regarding change in coverage analyzed; There is a well-settled principle of contract law that a party may, by his acts and conduct, assent to contract terms and become bound by them even though he has not signed the contract, if it is clear  that his conduct relates to the specific contract in question. McBride, J.

No.   1-09-2631 All American Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company   Filed 8-20-10 (LJD)

The plaintiff company was summoned to arbitration by its workers’ compensation insurer about unpaid deductibles and retrospective premiums totaling $747,093. It responded by filing this declaratory  judgment action, contending the mandatory arbitration clause the insurer was relying upon was unenforceable due to the insurer’s conduct at the time of contracting. The plaintiff’s second amended complaint  included claims of common law and statutory fraud (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2000)); breach of contract; lack of consideration; violation of Illinois public policy; and failure to give adequate notice of new  coverage terms in a renewal policy (215 ILCS 5/143.17a (West 2000)). The court stayed the arbitration, but subsequently dismissed or entered summary judgment against most of the plaintiff’s claims,  resolved the remaining issues through an evidentiary hearing, and then directed the parties to arbitrate their dispute. The plaintiff employer appeals.

8.  Domestic Relations: Certified Question: Under the UCCJEA, a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the  jurisdictional standards of this Act must be recognized and enforced, unless the child custody law of the foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.  It is clear that the drafters of the UCCJEA did not intend that "residence" be equated with "domicile" in this context. Steele, J.

No. 1-10-1084  In re Marriage of Akula   Filed 8-20-10 (LJD)

Following a hearing in the circuit court of Cook County, the trial court granted summary judgment to respondent Malini Akula on parts of a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against her ex-husband  Vikram Akula. Subsequently, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308), the circuit court certified the question of whether Illinois has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over child  custody determinations regarding their son, T.B.A., under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (750 ILCS 36/101 et seq. (West 2006)) for appeal to this court. For the  following reasons, we answer the certified question in the negative.

Post Conviction Petition: Reversed: Three stages relief under  Post Conviction Review analyzed.  A pro se petition need not be construed so strictly during the first stage of   postconviction proceedings. The supreme court has held that, to survive summary dismissal, a pro se postconviction petitioner is not required to allege facts supporting all elements of a constitutional claim.  Petitions filed pro se should be given a liberal construction and are to be reviewed " 'with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.' " Burke, J.

No. 2-08-0773  People v. Mescall  Filed 8-26-10 (LJD)

Defendant, Thomas R. Mescall, appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition pursuant to section 122--2.1(a)(2) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS  5/122--2.1(a)(2) (West 2008)).  Defendant filed his first pro se postconviction petition on June 30, 2008, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the  postconviction petition. Defendant appeals, contending that his petition was not frivolous or patently without merit, because he presented an arguable claim that he received ineffective assistance of trial and  appellate counsel for failing to challenge: (1) the trial court's error in imposing mandatory consecutive sentences, and (2) the defective information that charged him with the offenses, some of which occurred before the effective date of the statute creating the offense.