Bernard Martin Decker

In United States v. Keane, Alderman Thomas E. Keane was convicted in 1974 of mail fraud and conspiracy for secretly acquiring tax-delinquent properties, using his city council position to reduce liens and facilitate sales to city agencies at favorable prices without disclosing his interest. After the Supreme Court's McNally decision narrowed the mail fraud statute to exclude schemes depriving victims only of intangible rights to honest government, Keane petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate the conviction. The district court denied the petition, holding that the evidence established a scheme causing tangible financial losses to the City of Chicago through undervalued foreclosure bids and overpriced property sales, which satisfied the post-McNally requirements, and that any erroneous jury instructions on intangible rights were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved trustees of a multiemployer pension fund suing an employer under ERISA to compel interim withdrawal liability payments after the employer withdrew from the plan and ceased contributions. The court granted the fund's motion for summary judgment and denied the employer's cross-motion, ordering the employer to make the required interim payments pending arbitration of the total liability amount, plus past-due payments with interest. The court reasoned that ERISA establishes a pay-now-dispute-later framework requiring payments to begin within 60 days of demand regardless of challenges, with disputes resolved through mandatory arbitration, and declared the statutory exemption provision cited by the employer unconstitutional and null and void.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a creditor, Merrill Lynch, appealing a bankruptcy court's ruling that denied its motion to file a late claim in debtor Theora Dodd's Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch argued it never received notice of the bankruptcy petition or bar date, while Dodd contended that proper notice had been mailed. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court, holding that the presumption of receipt from the clerk's certificate of mailing was rebutted by evidence of Merrill Lynch's mail-handling procedures and lack of any record of the notice, and that an alleged phone call about the bankruptcy was inadmissible hearsay. As a result, Merrill Lynch was permitted to file its late claim, and Dodd's related motions were denied.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this diversity case, plaintiffs sued Business News Publishing Company for breach of a written agreement involving the sale of their conceived cable industry product catalog "Ciindex," in exchange for five years of employment and profit sharing, after the company terminated payments and the relationship. The company counterclaimed for fraud and breach, and moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended complaint's counts for breach of contract, willful misconduct, defamation, and negligence. Applying Illinois law, the court granted dismissal only of the defamation count, finding no defamatory communication occurred from the alleged failure to inform plaintiffs of termination, while denying dismissal of the other counts because the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting a sale-of-assets component in the contract, potential negligence, and reckless conduct that could support punitive damages.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Terry v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., plaintiffs Rothery Storage and Van Co. and its president Donald Terry sued Atlas Van Lines and its majority shareholder Wesray, alleging in Count I that Atlas, its board, and officers violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) by conspiring to intimidate Rothery from participating in an antitrust suit against Atlas and to injure its business by terminating the agency agreement after it did participate. The court had previously dismissed the count under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, treating the alleged conduct as actions of a single corporate entity rather than a conspiracy among separate actors. On plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the court denied relief, holding that the presence of competing agents on Atlas's board and termination committee did not show they acted outside their fiduciary duties to the corporation, and it granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint because the new allegations remained conclusory, failed to allege actions benefiting competitors at Atlas's expense, and did not name individual defendants.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case was a copyright infringement suit brought by owners of musical compositions against the owner of a Chicago restaurant for publicly performing seven copyrighted songs without a license from ASCAP or the copyright holders, both through live musicians and radio retransmissions over a multi-speaker system. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, awarding $33,696.63 in damages and fees and issuing a permanent injunction against further unlicensed performances of the listed works. The court reasoned that the restaurant was a public place, the performances were therefore public under the Copyright Act, and the radio setup did not qualify for the statutory homestyle exemption because the receiver and speakers were commercial-grade equipment not commonly found in private homes and the business generated substantial revenue. The live performance was also found to be infringing because the proprietor bears responsibility even for non-employee musicians.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee's motion to clarify a prior court order and compel former attorneys of National Trade Corporation (NTC) to answer deposition questions about communications with NTC's former president and his wife regarding corporate affairs. The court ruled that the trustee could waive NTC's attorney-client privilege, allowing inquiry into those communications, and that the attorneys could not assert a personal privilege on behalf of the individuals because they had not been retained as personal counsel. The reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing the trustee's power to waive the corporation's privilege and the lack of evidence that the attorneys represented the individuals personally rather than incidentally through their corporate representation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Chrysler Motors Corporation sued its former licensee Alloy Automotive Company under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, alleging that Alloy continued selling automotive parts in packaging bearing Chrysler’s registered marks after the license ended. Alloy raised an affirmative defense claiming Chrysler had abandoned the marks by failing to monitor the quality of products Alloy produced under the license. The court granted Chrysler’s motion to strike the defense, holding that the doctrine of licensee estoppel bars a former licensee from challenging the validity of the licensor’s trademark based on facts arising during the licensing period. The ruling relied on precedents establishing that a licensee’s contractual recognition of the mark’s validity extends post-termination for pre-termination conduct, while allowing challenges only for later-arising facts.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned the United States and Illinois's efforts to enforce a $2.2 million judgment against Dr. Alaska, obtained after he was found to have defrauded the Medicaid program under the False Claims Act and Illinois Public Aid Code. While the federal suit was pending, Dr. Alaska assigned his $200,000 fire insurance claim to his wife as part of their divorce settlement, leaving him insolvent. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the assignment as a fraudulent conveyance under Illinois law. The court granted the motion, ruling the transfer fraudulent in law because it was made for inadequate consideration by an insolvent debtor facing existing indebtedness, and fraudulent in fact due to the timing, concealment of the federal case from the divorce court, and clear intent to hinder creditors.

criminal lawhealthcarefamily lawproperty

In this bankruptcy case, James Martin filed a proof of claim against UNR Industries for personal injuries from asbestos exposure, and UNR objected while moving for summary judgment based on the government contract specification defense. The district court had previously withdrawn the objections from the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Martin then sought to transfer the summary judgment motion to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under § 157(b)(5). The court granted the transfer, reasoning that a single motion testing the defense did not require centralized handling in Illinois, that the Pennsylvania court was better positioned to apply governing state law, and that forcing Martin (a Philadelphia resident represented by local counsel) to litigate there would impose an undue burden given the estate's resources and the case's purpose of informing reorganization.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Plaintiff Arnold Saret sued Triform Corp. (later American Hydraulics), its former president, and its employee benefit plan seeking reimbursement for medical expenses under ERISA and related state claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contract, based on his enrollment in the plan while serving as a director. The court denied the ERISA claim after finding that Saret was a part-time director rather than a full-time employee and thus ineligible under the plan terms, and that estoppel did not apply to require payment. The court dismissed the pendent claims for lack of jurisdiction, denied the company's counterclaim for failure to prove breach of duty, and denied the defendants' motion for attorney's fees after considering the plaintiff's good faith and financial circumstances.

labor & employment

This case is a class action by several companies against American National Bank and employee Ronald Grayheck, alleging the bank overcharged interest on loans by using a rate above its true prime rate and mailing notices and bills to plaintiffs as part of the scheme. Plaintiffs asserted civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a) and (c) based on mail fraud predicates, plus state claims for breach of contract, Illinois consumer fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. On the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, the court ruled that the RICO counts adequately pleaded a pattern of racketeering through multiple related mailings over time showing continuity, so most RICO and pendent claims survived, but it dismissed the bank from Count I (leaving only the employee defendant) and dismissed the fiduciary-duty count because the relationship was purely contractual. The reasoning centered on Sedima's guidance that the pattern element requires more than isolated acts but is satisfied here by the ongoing course of conduct affecting multiple loans.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Terry v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., a local Illinois moving and storage company and its president sued a national carrier and its majority shareholder after the carrier terminated their long-standing agency agreement, claiming the termination was in retaliation for the company's participation in a separate antitrust suit against the carrier. The complaint included a federal civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and 1986, plus state-law claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act; the defendants filed counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference. On cross-motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court dismissed the federal conspiracy count because the alleged conspirators were all agents of a single corporate entity and therefore could not form a conspiracy under the statute.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Coldwell Banker & Co. seeking to enforce a promissory note for a brokerage fee against defendants Louis and George Eyde related to the sale and leaseback of Michigan properties. The defendants moved to quash service of the summons and dismiss the complaint after receiving the papers by first-class mail but failing to return the required acknowledgment within 20 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii). The court ruled that such mail service is ineffective without timely acknowledgment, requiring instead personal or abode service under the rule, and further determined that a forum selection clause in the note mandated dismissal without prejudice.

procedure

John Howard sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services seeking judicial review of the dismissal of his disability benefits claim after he failed to appear at an administrative hearing, which he attributed to not receiving notice. The Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which generally limits review to final decisions made after a hearing. The court denied the motion, holding that the hearing requirement is not absolute and can be subject to waiver or limited judicial review where the claim involves due process allegations or an agency's alleged failure to follow its own regulations, as in Mathews v. Eldridge and Weinberger v. Salfi. The decision allows only narrow review of the procedural dismissal without addressing the merits of the benefits claim.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

In this bankruptcy appeal, EES Lambert challenged the bankruptcy court's order requiring restoration to the estate of $20,500 in attorneys' fees paid for defending a HUD foreclosure action and a $25,000 pre-petition retainer for bankruptcy representation, both disbursed from rental income of the housing project that served as its primary asset. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that these payments violated the Regulatory Agreement with HUD, which restricted use of project funds to reasonable operating expenses and necessary repairs once the mortgage was in default. The core reasoning was that the fees benefited the investors rather than the project's everyday operations and maintenance, and the agreement did not permit project funds to finance defense of HUD's own foreclosure action or pre-petition bankruptcy counsel without consent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Leo Rengers suing his former employer WCLR Radio Station for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after his discharge in 1980. A jury found in his favor, awarding back pay, and the court added liquidated damages for willful violation. The court had to decide on front pay as an alternative to reinstatement. It denied front pay, reasoning that the existing damages sufficiently compensated the plaintiff and that a longer award would be speculative given uncertain job tenure in radio.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Fontano v. City of Chicago, plaintiff John Fontano, a probationary career service laborer reclassified under a City ordinance, sued the City and its Department of Sewers commissioner after his termination without a hearing, claiming a protected property interest in continued employment under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and related civil rights laws, along with pendent state claims. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal cause of action. It held that Fontano lacked a legitimate expectation of continued employment because the applicable personnel rules and reclassification memorandum expressly permitted discharge of probationary employees without cause or a hearing, and no mutually explicit understanding or ordinance created an entitlement to just-cause protection or pretermination review. The court rejected arguments based on rating factors or implied contracts, finding no ambiguity or constitutional property interest under Illinois law or federal standards, and dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Lipin Enterprises sued Lee and other defendants including banks, directors, attorneys, and accountants under the federal RICO statute, claiming they formed an enterprise to defraud Lipin into buying stock in two companies by making false statements that inflated the companies' net worth and concealed over $2.3 million in liabilities, with the mailings of those statements constituting a pattern of racketeering. The defendants moved to dismiss the RICO counts for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the allegations did not establish an ongoing enterprise separate from the predicate acts or the required continuity in the pattern of racketeering activity, as the supposed association was limited to a single transaction. The court also dismissed the related state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Illinois state officials and an advertising agency seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's tourism slogan did not infringe the rights of Happy States of America, Inc., a Virginia company, while the company filed counterclaims for copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and related state claims. The sole issue addressed was whether the counterclaims against the state plaintiffs must be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity doctrine. The court reasoned that suits against state agencies and officials are generally barred unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has validly abrogated it, and that initiating the lawsuit constitutes only a limited waiver allowing defensive counterclaims for recoupment but not affirmative relief or independent judgments against the state. It further analyzed whether the Copyright Act or Lanham Act demonstrated congressional intent to override state immunity, concluding such intent was lacking under recent Supreme Court precedent.

federal powerprocedure