In Jensen v. Quik International, plaintiff Eric Jensen sued to rescind a franchise agreement with Quik under sections 5, 10, and 26 of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987 because Quik had failed to register with the Illinois Attorney General before selling the franchise, and Quik moved to stay the suit and compel arbitration under the agreement's broad arbitration clause covering claims of invalidity or illegality. The circuit and appellate courts denied arbitration, ruling that the registration requirement was a condition precedent so no enforceable contract (and thus no arbitration obligation) existed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that Jensen's statutory rescission claim was arbitrable because the clause expressly included disputes over whether the agreement was void or illegal, the Act's text and structure did not treat registration as a prerequisite to contract formation, and Illinois and federal policy strongly favor arbitration of such issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.
This case concerned a pretrial detainee found unfit to stand trial who was subject to a petition for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. The circuit court granted the petition after appointing an independent examiner from the Kane County Diagnostic Center, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the statute applies to pretrial detainees found unfit, that the independent examination must be performed by a qualified professional to satisfy due process, and that the detainee's criminal defense attorney was entitled to notice as a known agent under the statute's broad language. The court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate judgment, finding a due process violation in the examination process but upholding the statute's applicability when properly applied.
The case concerned whether a 2001 court-approved consent decree granting specific visitation rights to the maternal grandparents of minor M.M.D. remained enforceable after the Illinois Supreme Court in Wickham v. Byrne (2002) invalidated the state's grandparent visitation statute as unconstitutional. The circuit court and appellate court both held that the preexisting agreement was not invalidated by Wickham. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the decree was a contractual consent order entered by agreement of the parties (including the father) rather than imposed under the statute, and that such provisions remain subject to modification only upon a showing of changed circumstances necessary to serve the child's best interests, with any modification required to respect the constitutional principles set forth in Wickham.
Pierre Ferguson sued the City of Chicago for malicious prosecution, alleging police officers falsely arrested and charged him with misdemeanors after he reported an ambulance collision. The circuit court dismissed the complaint under section 2-619(a)(5) as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that the underlying criminal proceedings did not terminate—and thus the malicious prosecution claim did not accrue—until the 160-day speedy-trial period expired after the charges were stricken with leave to reinstate, making Ferguson’s filing timely.
This case involved a dispute over the modification of child support payments in a divorce proceeding under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The father received annual gifts and loans from his parents totaling $46,000 in addition to his $15,000 teaching salary, and the question was whether these qualified as "net income" for calculating support obligations. The circuit court and appellate court both determined that they did, increasing the father's monthly support from $250 to $1,000. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the Act defines net income as total income from all sources without excluding gifts, and the purported loans were not repaid, making them equivalent to income.
This case concerned whether Richard Girot's due process rights were violated when the Municipal Officers Electoral Board, including the city clerk who received his petitions, decided objections to his mayoral candidacy based on petition binding requirements under the Election Code. The electoral board sustained the objections and removed Girot from the ballot, a decision affirmed by the circuit court. The appellate court determined that due process was violated by the board member's participation but found the error harmless, leading to the Illinois Supreme Court's review of the due process and harmless error issues.