Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Addison Ins. Co. v. Knight, Hoppe, Kurnick & Knight, LLC, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 680 (July 22, 2009) (Iowa Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant law firm finding that the insurer did not have the right to sue as subrogee of its insured).
  • Jones v. Chicago Cycle Center, 391 Ill.App.3d 101 (1st Dist. 2009) (Upon voluntarily dismissing personal injury case involving a motorcycle accident, the trial court awarded costs and expenses of over $181,000 to defendants pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(e), which would only become payable if plaintiffs' re-filed the case. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the conditional payment order was void, that there had been no discovery abuse warranting expenses under Rule 219(e). The appellate court held that plaintiffs' right to refile remained "unabridged," the trial court's order was not void, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs' proffered reason for voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit. Finally, the appellate court held that the Rule 219(e) award was reasonable).
  • Day v. Roehl Transport, Inc., No. 5-07-0378 (5th Dist. 2009) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision affirming trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims alleging breach of contract to provide workers’ compensation insurance and fraud).
  • Dorgan v. Walgreen Co., No. 1-08-2380 (1st Dist. 2009) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant where plaintiff claimed that defendant was liable for failing to prevent criminal assault in the store).
  • Thompson v. Hilton Hotel Corporation, No. 1-07-3206 (1st Dist. 2009) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant where plaintiff claimed to have sustained personal injury on the stairs of the Palmer House Hilton.  Trial court concluded that the stairs upon which Plaintiff fell were not unreasonably dangerous and appellate court affirmed).
  • Daniels v. Corrigan, 382 Ill.App.3d 66 (1st Dist. 2008) (Appellate court affirmed trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab in catastrophic personal injury case where plaintiff sought to impose liability on the Yellow Cab entities under theories of joint venture, vicarious liability and alter ego).
  • Citizens Financial Services, FSB v. Richmond, No. 1-05-1694 (1st Dist. 2008) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision affirming directed verdict on behalf of two real estate appraisers charged with breach of contract stemming from their alleged negligent appraisal of an office building.  Plaintiff, a national bank, alleged that it made a loan based on the negligent appraisal that subsequently went into default).
  • Lagestee v. Edward Chien, M.D., No. 1-04-0837 (1st Dist. 2008) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of University of Chicago Hospitals physician Edward Chien, M.D., in medical malpractice case.  Plaintiffs argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs' request to supplement the record with their expert’s affidavit post-summary judgment.  The Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions and affirmed summary judgment).
  • Bredelhoeft v. Loretto Hospital, No. 1- 06-2647 (1st Dist. 2007) (Unpublished appellate court decision dismissing the appeal of a plaintiff who sought recovery from the defendant hospital for alleged medical malpractice. Plaintiff had sued Loretto Hospital after her involuntary admission to defendant’s psychiatric unit.  The trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to attach an affidavit from a qualified health professional as required by section 2-622(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which was also dismissed and plaintiff appealed.  On appeal, plaintiff failed to prepare a proper record and her brief did not comply with supreme court rules governing appeals.  The appellate court concluded that it could not discern the issue on review, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed).
  • Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., Inc., et al., No. 3-06-0367 (3rd Dist. 2007) (Unpublished appellate court decision affirming the entry of summary judgment in favor of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company in a catastrophic personal injury case. The Ioerger case arose out of an accident where a suspended scaffold detached from beneath McCluggage Bridge in Peoria, Illinois sending five ironworkers into the Illinois River killing three of them and seriously injuring a fourth.  In addition to various contractors at the project, the Plaintiffs sued St. Paul directly in light of a contract St. Paul entered into with the Plaintiffs’ employer.
    St. Paul and the other defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from liability pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.  820 ILCS 305/5(a).  The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed).
  • Forest Group, Inc. v. Forest Partners II, L.P,No. 1-03-3619 (1st Dist. 2007) (Unpublished appellate court decision affirming a verdict in excess of two million dollars in favor of Johnson & Bell client.  This case has a storied history arising out of the formation, operation and subsequent dissolution of a limited partnership known as Forest Partners II, L.P.  In July 1991, Forest Partners II was formed after Dr. Tan had raised $1.2 million from investors to fund the partnership to joint venture with drug testing laboratories in order to market drug testing services to industry.  Forest Group, Inc. and Dr. Tan were the general partners and there were originally twelve limited partners, including Randall Pittman and Robert Lane who were the principals of the Forest Group.  A dispute arose between the partners, and Forest Group, Pittman and Lane sued Dr. Tan and all the limited partners seeking $23,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.  Dr. Tan and the Partnership filed a counterclaim against Forest Group, Pittman and Lane.  In response, Pittman and Lane filed a second lawsuit against Dr. Tan.  The cases were consolidated for trial.  The case was initially tried to verdict in the Fall of 1997.  The trial court found that Forest Group, Pittman and Lane were guilty of fraud and of breaching fiduciary duties owed to Dr. Tan and the Partnership.  The court awarded Dr. Tan and the Partnership compensatory damages in the amount of $1.2 million and punitive damages in the amount of $300,000.  The trial court dismissed the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s claims.The Forest Group, Pittman and Lane appealed.  In the first appeal, the First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s liability findings, but reversed the award of damages.  The appellate court further held that the trial court’s dismissal of the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s claims against Tan and the Partnership was erroneous.  The case was remanded to the trial court.

    On remand, the trial court rejected Forest Group, Pittman and Lane’s attempts to reopen the proofs and ultimately entered judgment in favor of Dr. Tan and the Partnership.  The trial court increased the award of damages to Dr. Tan and the Partnership awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $670,770 and punitive damages in the amount of $1,340,256.  The trial court also rejected all of the claims Forest Group, Pittman and Lane had asserted against Dr. Tan and the Partnership.

    The Forest Group, Pittman and Lane filed a second appeal.  In Forest Group, Inc. v. Forest Partners II, L.P., No. 03-3619, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s damage determinations and rejection of the claims asserted by the Forest Group, Pittman and Lane.

  • Crumpton v. Walgreen Co., 375 Ill.App.3d 73, 871 N.E.2d 905 (1st Dist. 2007) (Appeal of a wrongful death case arising from the alleged short-fill of a prescription. The mother's daughter committed suicide after not having taken her antipsychotic medication for four days. The mother alleged that the pharmacy was negligent in not having given her daughter the prescribed amount of pills. The jury returned a verdict for the mother. The trial court granted the pharmacy's motion for JNOV, finding that the only evidence before the jury was that the daughter's suicide was not foreseeable. The appellate court affirmed. In affirming, the court held that the general rule that suicide was an intervening cause applied to the daughter because the evidence did not show that she was so bereft of reason as to cause her to commit suicide. The mother had testified that the daughter acted normal, and two physicians testified that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the daughter would commit suicide).
  • Ritchey v. Nations, No. 1-04-3889 (1st Dist. 2006) (Unpublished Illinois Appellate Court decision which affirmed jury verdict in favor of defendant law firm.  The law firm was charged with malpractice stemming from its representation of former client in the sale of an internet business. The former client charged that the law firm failed to provide for a “cashless exercise” of securities that were given in exchange for the business, thereby triggering a one-year holding period under applicable securities laws before the securities could be sold. After a two-week trial, a jury returned a “not guilty” verdict that was later upheld on appeal).
  • Weisman v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, Ltd., 368 Ill.App.3d 41, 856 N.E.2d 1124 (1st Dist. 2006) (obtained jury verdict of “not guilty” in suit against attorneys alleging negligence in representation of plaintiff in underlying divorce proceedings that was affirmed by appellate court).
  • Sterling Radio Stations, Inc. v. Weinstein, 328 Ill.App.3d 58, 765 N.E.2d 56 (1st Dist. 2002) (obtained summary judgment on legal malpractice claim on basis that plaintiff could not prove damages that were proximately caused by attorney).