District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-09-25 · cited 16×
This antitrust case involved licensed chiropractors suing the American Medical Association and affiliated medical organizations for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to boycott chiropractors by enforcing Principle 3 of the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics, which barred physicians from professionally associating with unscientific practitioners. The case was on remand from the Seventh Circuit for a new trial after a jury verdict for the defendants was reversed, with the remaining defendants being the AMA, JCAH, and AAOS. The district court applied the rule of reason standard to assess whether the challenged conduct promoted or suppressed competition, holding that ethical guidelines from professional associations could support a finding of an illegal agreement to refuse to deal even without coercive enforcement. The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the extensive trial record, focusing on the effects of the alleged boycott on trade and commerce.
business & regulatoryhealthcare
Taylor v. O'GRADY
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-09-22 · cited 25×
This case was a class action civil rights lawsuit by correctional officers and supervisors at the Cook County Department of Corrections against the Sheriff and Executive Director, challenging the constitutionality of General Order 9.8A, which mandated annual (and sometimes more frequent) urine drug testing for all employees without individualized reasonable suspicion, under threat of termination. The court decided to grant declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, holding the compulsory testing program unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and permanently enjoining its enforcement. The core reasoning centered on the significant privacy intrusions of the testing procedures, which lacked justification given the minimal evidence of a drug problem among employees, the availability of less intrusive alternatives like observation by supervisors, and the absence of a demonstrated need to identify specific drugs to advance the employer's interests in safety and security.
civil rightscriminal lawlabor & employment
Van Kooten Holding B v. v. Dumarco Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-08-20 · cited 4×
The plaintiff Van Kooten Holding B.V. sued to register and enforce a Netherlands judgment in Illinois federal court, prompting the defendant Dumarco Corporation to file a breach-of-contract counterclaim. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Illinois statutes governing foreign judgments, arguing it could and should have been raised in the Netherlands proceeding. The court held that the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJR), not the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJ), governs enforcement of judgments from foreign countries such as the Netherlands, because the UEFJ applies only to sister-state judgments entitled to full faith and credit. Under the UFMJR, enforceability and the permissibility of counterclaims are determined by full-faith-and-credit res judicata principles rather than the procedural limits in the UEFJ. Because the parties had briefed the motion under the wrong statute, the court ordered additional briefing on whether the counterclaim is barred by full-faith-and-credit rules or by any implicit incorporation of UEFJ limits.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
United States v. Roth
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-08-17 · cited 3×
The case involves pretrial motions by defendant Roth, a private attorney, challenging a superseding indictment that charged him with two counts of Hobbs Act extortion and two RICO counts based on allegations that he solicited and paid bribes to influence outcomes in pending cases before the Circuit Court of Cook County. The court denied Roth's motion to dismiss the RICO counts, finding that the Seventh Circuit's Yonan decision remained good law after McNally and that the charged conduct sufficiently alleged association with and participation in the affairs of the court enterprise. It also largely denied the motion to strike certain racketeering events, as several alleged actual bribe payments to judges. On the statute of limitations challenge to the Hobbs Act counts, the court granted the motion in part by requiring deletion of new language alleging fear of economic harm, which it viewed as a substantive broadening of the original timely charges, while ordering the government to disclose the names of the accused judges.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Roth
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-08-13 · cited 2×
This case involved defendant Roth's motion to suppress evidence obtained from Title III electronic surveillance of Judge Olson's judicial chambers in connection with a federal investigation. Roth argued that the government's eavesdropping unreasonably exceeded the authorizing court order and failed to meet the statutory minimization requirement to limit interception of non-pertinent conversations. The court denied the motion after reviewing the record from a related case. It adopted the reasoning and conclusions of a prior opinion in United States v. Costello, finding that monitoring agents had made reasonable efforts to minimize interceptions, followed special procedures for privileged communications, and did not flagrantly disregard the order's limits.
criminal lawprocedure
Dixon v. City of Chicago
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987-06-30 · cited 5×
This case involves a § 1983 lawsuit by nonunion firefighters challenging the City of Chicago's collection of 'fair share' fees under an agency shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement with the firefighters union, on grounds that the deductions lacked the procedural safeguards required by Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. The City defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they had no independent duty to establish Hudson procedures, that the Illinois Labor Relations Board provided adequate review, and that an indemnification clause shifted any liability to the union. The court denied the motion, holding that public employers share responsibility with unions for providing adequate explanations, challenge procedures, and escrows under Hudson; that the Board lacked clear jurisdiction over fair share fee disputes under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act; and that indemnification did not justify dismissal of the City defendants.
labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech