Hubert Louis Will

This case concerns the Chicago Bulls and WGN's challenge to NBA rules limiting or taxing the number of Bulls games that could be broadcast on the WGN superstation. Building on a prior 1991 decision affirmed on appeal, the court addressed the NBA's new proposals for a total ban on such telecasts or imposition of a superstation fee, while the Bulls sought to air up to 41 games. The NBA's operations involve both joint actions by teams (such as national broadcasting contracts) and individual team rights to local broadcasts, with revenues from joint activities shared equally. The court applied federal antitrust law under precedents like NCAA v. Board of Regents, concluding that restrictions on output of games via superstations were not covered by the Sports Broadcasting Act exemption and constituted unreasonable restraints.

business & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement suit by the Riveras against Arlasky (after an uncollectible judgment against his company) in which intervening insurers sought a declaration that their policies imposed no duty to defend or indemnify Arlasky. The court granted the insurers summary judgment. It held that the policies' "advertising injury" coverage for offenses such as piracy, unfair competition, or infringement of copyright, title, or slogan did not encompass patent infringement. It further held that one insurer's policies had expired before the earliest date for which damages could be recovered under the six-year patent statute of limitations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a class action lawsuit filed after the October 1987 stock market crash, alleging issues with options pricing on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange on October 20, 1987. The parties reached a $10 million settlement creating a common fund for class members. The court, acting as fiduciary under the common fund doctrine, reviewed extensive fee and expense petitions from multiple law firms covering over four years of work. It approved $2.9 million in attorneys' fees (29% of the settlement), $1,002,252.50 in costs, and $30,000 in incentive awards to the three representative plaintiffs, while establishing a $40,000 reserve and directing distribution of the remainder to the class. The reductions from the over $5.9 million requested in fees and costs were based on scrutiny of time records, reasonableness of expenses, and the need to protect class members' interests.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved the distribution of substantial unclaimed funds remaining after distributions to class members in an antitrust class action settlement between Superior Beverage Co. and Owens-Illinois, Inc. The court applied the cy pres doctrine, invited grant applications through public notice, held hearings, and reviewed submissions to allocate the balance, which exceeded $2 million, to 14 recipients including law schools, legal aid organizations, and public interest groups. The core reasoning examined the historical limits of cy pres and its more flexible modern application in antitrust cases, permitting awards that advance legal education, advocacy training, and access to justice even without a direct tie to the original claims. The court imposed reporting requirements on recipients and ordered the bank to disburse specific amounts to each grantee.

procedurecivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves an antitrust challenge by the Chicago Bulls and WGN against NBA rules restricting superstation broadcasts of games, including the Superstation Same Night Rule (barring same-night superstation telecasts when TNT airs NBA games) and the 25-Game Rule (limiting superstation broadcasts per team). The NBA moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Same Night Rule was exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the Sports Broadcasting Act because it was part of the league's TNT contract, and that damages claims related to the 25-Game Rule lacked merit. The court denied the motion, holding that the SBA exemption did not apply since the teams retained ownership of broadcast rights rather than transferring them to the league, TNT's mix of subscription and advertising revenue did not clearly qualify as 'sponsored telecasting,' and factual disputes existed regarding the Bulls' and WGN's ability and intent to broadcast more games.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1983, which requires 24 hours' notice to both parents (or one in certain circumstances) before an abortion can be performed on an unemancipated minor, with an option for judicial waiver of notice. The court had previously enjoined enforcement of the Act due to its waiting period and inadequate bypass procedures, and after the Illinois Supreme Court issued Rule 307 to address confidentiality and expedition in waiver proceedings, the defendants sought to lift the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The court decided to maintain the injunction against the Act, finding that Rule 307 does not adequately ensure confidentiality for minors using the bypass option. The core reasoning is that the judicial bypass must provide a confidential and expeditious alternative to parental notice to satisfy constitutional standards for such statutes.

abortionfamily lawcivil rights

This case is a patent infringement dispute between National Presto Industries and Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. over the '755 patent, focusing on pretrial motions regarding damages and affirmative defenses. The court addressed defendants' motion to bar the plaintiff from seeking reasonable royalty damages due to lack of supporting evidence and the plaintiff's motion to strike two of the defendants' affirmative defenses. It decided to continue the damages motion for one week to allow the plaintiff time to provide discovery on a reasonable royalty figure (or face barring of such damages) and granted the motion to strike the third and fourth affirmative defenses. The core reasoning was that patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 require evidence rather than conjecture in a jury trial, and that the challenged defenses were either redundant with existing noninfringement or estoppel defenses or lacked legal support for claims like unclean hands based on suppression of an invention.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Chicago Bulls and WGN challenging an NBA rule, enacted by the league's Board of Governors, that reduced the number of games each team could broadcast on superstations from 25 to 20. The Bulls and WGN alleged that this constituted a horizontal agreement among teams to restrict output in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding the reduction an unreasonable restraint of trade. It reasoned that the NBA had not shown the limit achieved legitimate goals like increasing game availability or competition, and instead would reduce broadcasts to raise prices in the future.

business & regulatory

This case involved Consolidated Aluminum Corporation's claims that Foseco International Ltd., Foseco Inc., and other defendants infringed six U.S. patents related to ceramic foam filters for molten metal. After a trial before a magistrate judge, who found some patents valid and willfully infringed and issued an injunction while rejecting others as invalid and denying antitrust counterclaims, the district court reviewed the objections. The court determined that four patents were invalid or unenforceable due to Consolidated's inequitable conduct, including intentional concealment of the best mode and inadequate disclosure of prior art, and affirmed that the remaining two patents were invalid for obviousness. As a result, the court reversed the findings of infringement and the injunction but upheld the denial of the antitrust claims under 15 U.S.C. § 2.

business & regulatory

This multi-district antitrust case arose from a nationwide price-fixing conspiracy among folding carton manufacturers that led to a record $200 million class action settlement in 1979. After distributing over $206 million to more than 2,600 claimants and paying fees, approximately $6 million remained in a reserve fund due to investment earnings. The district court had directed that the residue be used for an antitrust research foundation rather than returned to class members or defendants, a ruling partially affirmed on appeal. The United States then moved to intervene under Rule 24 and to vacate a 1985 settlement agreement concerning the fund. The court denied both motions, finding the government's intervention untimely given multiple prior notices and that the prior disposition of the fund remained binding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves an inmate at a federal correctional center who alleged that he was denied necessary medical treatment for hemorrhoids, subjected to unauthorized surgery, and defamed by medical staff, leading to claims against individual defendants for Eighth Amendment violations and against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence and supervision failures. The court dismissed the defamation claim against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA's exception for libel and slander claims. It denied the motions for summary judgment by defendants Jenkins and Wayman, as well as the United States on the non-defamation claims, because genuine issues of material fact remained unresolved regarding the adequacy of medical care and potential constitutional violations.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powertorts & liability

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Casualty Indemnity Exchange seeks a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to indemnify Impact Engineering or the City of Chicago for the wrongful death of construction worker Arnett Banks, Jr., who fell from a scaffold on a city project. The court denied all motions for summary judgment filed by the insurer, the city, Impact, and the decedent’s widow. The decision rests on the conclusion that none of the parties supplied competent, properly supported evidence to eliminate genuine issues of material fact, particularly on whether the city was validly endorsed as an additional insured on the relevant policy through authorized agency channels and whether notice of the accident was given “as soon as practicable.”

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiff Robert Bily's lawsuit against Illinois Central Gulf Railroad and others to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property and to invalidate easements granted on the land, with initial claims that the United States held an interest in the property. After the United States disclaimed any interest based on a survey, the remaining defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motions and dismissed the case without prejudice. It reasoned that jurisdiction had been predicated solely on the Quiet Title Act, which waives sovereign immunity only when the United States claims an interest in the property; once that interest ended, the statute required dismissal of the entire action, leaving no basis for federal jurisdiction including pendent state claims, and complete diversity was absent.

propertyprocedure

This case is a follow-up to prior litigation in which the court enjoined construction of federally funded highway FAP 408 through Napoleon Hollow, an area containing protected parkland and historic sites under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and section 138 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. After Congress authorized bridge replacement funds for the project and the Secretary of Transportation prepared a new 4(f) Statement concluding there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to alignment #5 (which would take land from the Pike County Conservation Area and the Wade farm), the Eagle Foundation sued to block the highway. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record. The court granted the defendants' motion, affirming the Secretary's determinations that no feasible and prudent alternatives existed and that the project incorporated all possible measures to minimize harm to the protected properties.

environmentfederal powerpropertyprocedure

Robert J. Pelizza sued Reader’s Digest Sales & Services Inc. for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his 1985 termination from an advertising sales position. The court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, holding that an employee manual outlining termination procedures for performance issues or rule violations could form part of an implied employment contract and limit at-will termination under Illinois law. The court granted the motion to dismiss the emotional distress claim, ruling that the complaint alleged neither extreme or outrageous conduct by the employer nor intent or reckless disregard in causing severe distress.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case is a commercial dispute between Hollymatic Corporation, a manufacturer of meat processing equipment, and its former consultant Harry Holly and his company Holly Systems, involving claims of breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition, trademark issues, and antitrust violations under federal and Illinois law, with both sides seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court addressed Hollymatic's motion to dismiss two counts of the counterclaim: Count II for fraud and Count V for product disparagement. The motion was granted as to the fraud count because Illinois law does not recognize promissory fraud based on unfulfilled future intentions unless it forms part of a broader scheme to defraud, and the counterclaim's allegations did not satisfy that exception. The motion was denied as to product disparagement because the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim under applicable standards. The decision rests on taking the counterclaim's facts as true and applying Illinois substantive law and federal pleading rules.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a trademark dispute where Floralife, Inc. sued Floraline International, Inc. for using a similar mark, FLORALINE, which allegedly causes public confusion with its registered FLORALIFE trademark in the floral products industry. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer the case for improper venue, finding that the defendant was doing business in the district through its telephone terminals and sales activities. It granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on its claims based on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's prior determination of likely confusion and the one-letter difference between the marks. The injunction prevents the defendant from installing new telemarketing units or soliciting subscribers under the FLORALINE mark.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved city employees who filed a contempt action alleging that promotions to supervisory positions violated a 1982 consent decree prohibiting political patronage in employment decisions under Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County. After trial, the parties reached an oral settlement in which the City agreed to pay $70,000 (including attorneys' fees), make the next three promotions from an eligibility list that included the plaintiffs, and have the court issue an opinion clarifying the decree's scope while dismissing three individual defendants; the plaintiffs agreed not to appeal those dismissals. Plaintiffs later moved to amend their complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) to add claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 in an effort to recover additional attorney fees, arguing the claims had been tried by consent. The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and denied the amendment motion, holding that the settlement was a final, complete resolution that expressly included all fees, that the new claims had not been tried by implied consent, and that the parties had not contemplated further fee recovery.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved claims by Water Rate Takers that the City of Chicago and officials violated the 1972 Shakman consent decree by promoting three employees to supervisor positions based on political sponsorship and recommendations, while denying promotions to the plaintiffs for the same reasons. The court held that the decree's ban on political considerations in government employment applies to promotions as well as hiring and firing, but that job applicants may seek and receive political recommendations without violating the decree under the First Amendment. It further determined that the decree's application to promotions was sufficiently ambiguous before 1984 to preclude a contempt finding, leading to dismissal of the promoted employees as defendants and dismissal of the case with prejudice after the remaining parties settled. The core reasoning rested on the decree's text prohibiting political factors in employment decisions, precedents interpreting the decree, and the employees' protected right to political association.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speech

This case involves a contractual dispute between Lovejoy Electronics and Gerald O’Berto over the development and sale of the HOHM 8081 computer chip, including claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud related to a Consulting Agreement with a Japanese exclusivity clause and Fenner royalties provision. Lovejoy moved for summary judgment on O’Berto’s counterclaims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that O’Berto could proceed with his breach claim on the exclusivity clause because Lovejoy failed to show an absence of damages and that certain parol evidence regarding the royalties provision was admissible under an exception to the parol evidence rule, while other aspects were barred. The decision relies on Illinois contract law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards for summary judgment, specifying certain facts as established for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure