Thomas R. Fitzgerald

The case was a wrongful death action stemming from a 1999 scaffolding accident at a power plant that killed Michael Ready; after settling with some defendants including the employer Midwest and general contractor BMW, the plaintiff proceeded to trial against scaffolding subcontractor United. The trial court excluded evidence of the settling defendants' conduct under section 2-1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected United's sole proximate cause defense and jury instruction, resulting in a verdict finding United 65% at fault. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the prior precedent in Ready I required exclusion of such evidence for apportionment purposes and that the sole proximate cause theory was not supported on the record.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Wright Development Group, LLC against John Walsh after Walsh told a local newspaper reporter at a public meeting in an alderman's office that his condominium association had sued the 'Wright Development Group' or 'Wright Group' over construction issues and a needed loan. Walsh argued his statements were protected from suit under the Citizen Participation Act, which immunizes acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to participate in government. The trial court denied immunity, the appellate court dismissed Walsh's appeal as moot, and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Act applied to Walsh's statements made during and immediately after the public forum on condominium development issues. The court reasoned that the statements were made in connection with efforts to influence government action on developer misconduct and thus fell within the Act's protections for citizen participation.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with felony driving while license revoked after a police officer stopped his vehicle based on a registration check showing a revoked license, even though the officer knew an RDP had been issued but did not know its terms and observed no traffic violation. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, finding the stop unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving outside the RDP. The appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that under the Vehicle Code, an RDP is a statutory defense rather than an element the state must disprove, so an officer may lawfully stop a driver with a revoked license without first verifying the RDP's specific terms.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to Steven J. Rauschenberger's eligibility to run as a Republican candidate for State Senator in the 2010 primary election, based on his having voted a Democratic ballot in the 2009 consolidated primary. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Rauschenberger was eligible and his nomination papers were valid. The core reasoning was that the Election Code's section 8-8 no longer imposes time-based restrictions on party switching for candidates, unlike prior versions or the Cullerton precedent, and Rauschenberger satisfied the remaining requirement that a candidate not participate in multiple parties' primaries simultaneously.

elections

The case involved the conviction of defendant Sandy Williams following a bench trial for two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery based on an attack on victim L.J. in 2000. The primary issues on appeal concerned whether an Illinois State Police forensic analyst's testimony about a DNA profile match—derived in part from a report prepared by a nontestifying analyst at Cellmark Diagnostics—lacked foundation or violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as hearsay. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the analyst's independent expert opinion was admissible because the underlying report was not introduced for its truth and satisfied evidentiary standards, while also reversing the appellate court to uphold the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved consolidated appeals concerning six automobile accidents where drivers lacked valid licenses, and insurers Founders and Safeway sought declaratory judgments that their policies excluded liability coverage. The policies contained exclusions denying coverage for use of a vehicle without a reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so. Trial courts granted summary judgment to the insurers finding no coverage, but the appellate court reversed in five cases after deeming the exclusion ambiguous. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the exclusion is unambiguous and enforceable, ruling that it applies to unlicensed drivers and does not violate the state's mandatory insurance laws because insurers may limit risks to those with valid licenses. The court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate judgments, confirming no duty to defend or indemnify in all six cases.

business & regulatorytorts & liability