Thomas J. Moran

The case arose from the dissolution of a two-partner law firm, after which the former partners disputed the division of fees earned on pending cases and the allocation of post-dissolution overhead expenses. Plaintiff sought an accounting, while defendant counterclaimed for fees from cases each partner handled individually after dissolution. Following a bench trial, the trial court adopted the formula proposed by plaintiff's expert for calculating overhead credits and ordered defendant to prepare an accounting using that method; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that defendant had waived his objection to the expert's testimony under Rule 220 by proceeding after deposition, and it approved the overhead formula as consistent with equitable partnership principles under the Uniform Partnership Act, though a partial dissent argued the formula's 50% multiplier should be removed to fully reimburse the winding-up partner.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether a new political party's failure to include candidates for judicial offices on its slate violated the 'complete slate' requirement of section 10-2 of the Illinois Election Code, potentially disqualifying all of its candidates from the ballot in Cook County. After the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the issue, the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the statute's language requiring petitions to list candidates for offices up for election. The court held that the requirement applies to judicial positions and invalidates an incomplete slate. Its reasoning centered on resolving statutory ambiguity through the plain meaning of the Code's provisions governing new party nominations, without addressing constitutional questions left open by the federal remand.

elections

The case concerned a dentist sanctioned by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation for using terms such as 'family dentistry,' 'total comfort,' and 'quality' in his advertising, in alleged violation of the Dental Practice Act. Ardt sought administrative review in circuit court, challenging the sanctions and the constitutionality of the advertising rules on First Amendment grounds, and obtained a stay of the penalties despite a statutory provision that appeared to bar stays during review. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling, holding that circuit courts possess authority to grant stays in such cases and that an unqualified ban on 'family dentistry' was unconstitutionally overbroad, while upholding prohibitions on the other terms as permissible restrictions on potentially misleading commercial speech. The core reasoning rested on the Administrative Review Law's grant of equitable powers to courts, the limits of commercial speech protection under the First Amendment, and the distinction between false or deceptive advertising and protected professional promotion.

free speechhealthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In People v. Ward, defendant Jerry Ward was tried and convicted in Cook County of two murders, armed robbery, and possession of a stolen vehicle arising from the February 1986 shooting of Bruce Herd and beating death of Pamela Williams during the theft of Herd's car, after which he received a death sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence on direct appeal. The court rejected numerous claims of error in the guilt phase, including evidentiary admissions, due process issues, jury procedures, sufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel; it likewise rejected challenges to the sentencing hearing and found the Illinois death penalty statute constitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Scadron Enterprises, which sought to erect a large off-premise billboard near an interstate highway in Des Plaines, Illinois, after obtaining a state permit under the Illinois Highway Advertising Control Act but being denied a local building permit because the city's ordinance prohibited signs visible from limited-access highways. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit certified questions to the Illinois Supreme Court on whether the Act preempts home-rule municipalities from regulating or banning such signs. The court held that the Act does not preempt home-rule authority and that municipalities may impose stricter rules, including total bans, on outdoor advertising within 660 feet of covered highways. The reasoning rested on the Illinois Constitution of 1970, which preserves concurrent home-rule regulatory powers unless the legislature specifically limits them, and found no such express preemption or conflict with federal highway funding conditions under the Beautification Act.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

In People v. Emerson, the defendant, convicted of murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, and aggravated arson stemming from a 1979 armed robbery and stabbing incident that resulted in one victim's death, appealed the circuit court's dismissal without an evidentiary hearing of his post-conviction petition seeking relief from his death sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt and sentencing phases of his trial, along with challenges to the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute, were barred by res judicata or waiver because they had been or could have been raised on direct appeal. The court reasoned that exceptions to res judicata did not apply, as the claims lacked new facts not previously considered and the performance of counsel must be evaluated based on the circumstances at the time rather than by comparison to prior proceedings, and that prior rejections of similar constitutional challenges to the statute precluded reconsideration.

criminal lawprocedure