Supreme Court Quick Takes

CIVIL

Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association

By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa

Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore, while nominally about the circumstances in which a condominium unit owner can obtain the records of the condominium association, is fundamentally about whether the section of the Chicago Municipal Code dealing with that subject is a valid exercise of the City’s home rule power. The court also decided that the prevailing plaintiff unit owner, entitled to attorneys fees pursuant to the ordinance allowing recovery of "his reasonable attorney fees," is not limited to the fees actually charged by his attorney, but could recover greater fees at the reasonable market rate established by the evidence. The circuit and appellate courts were affirmed.

The association defendants asserted that the Chicago ordinance conflicted with the Condominium Property Act and the General Not For Profit Corporation Act. The statutes require unit owners to state a proper purpose for obtaining association financial books, limit requests to ten years of records, and allow the association 30 days in which to gather the records. The ordinance does not require statement of a purpose, does not restrict the age of the documents, and requires production with three business days. The parties and the court all agreed that the ordinance conflicted with the statutes.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case Russell v. SNFA and the criminal cases People v. Domagala, People v. Martinez, People v. Lloyd and People v. Colyar.

CIVIL

Russell v. SNFA

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.

This helicopter-crash case provoked two important long-arm-jurisdiction issues: whether due process protection under the Illinois long-arm statute is greater than federal due process protectionsand whether to apply a narrow or broad version of the stream-of-commerce theory.

Defendant SNFA manufactured a custom tail-rotor bearing in France used in a helicopter manufactured by an Italian company. That manufacturer’s wholly-owned subsidiary located in Pennsylvania sells defendant-produced parts and sells helicopters incorporating defendant’s parts. SNFA knew that the manufacturer incorporated its products into its helicopters for sale in America but did not know the final destination.

SNFA does not have any direct United States customers for its custom-made helicopter parts. SNFA does not have any offices, property, assets or employees in Illinois.

Since 1997, SNFA has sold aerospace bearings to a company located in Rockford. Those bearings are a different model and type from those involved in this case. 

A helicopter containing an SNFA part crashed in Illinois.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case In re Estate of Boyar and the criminal cases People v. Fitzpatrick, People v. Le Mirage, Inc. and People v. Hunter.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Ferguson v. Patton, Julie Q. v. the Department of Children and Family Services and DeHart v. DeHart and the criminal cases People v. Cruz and People v. Donelson.

CIVIL

DeHart v. DeHart

By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa

For more than 50 years plaintiff believed his decedent father’s representation that the decedent was plaintiff’s biological father. Plaintiff found to the contrary when he obtained a certified copy of his birth certificate to obtain a passport, which revealed who his biological father was. That man had abandoned the plaintiff when he was two, and had no further contact. Decedent married plaintiff’s mother, and for more than 60 years held plaintiff out to everyone as his biological son. 

Plaintiff’s mother died in April 2001. In 2005, decedent, then 83, married defendant, 29 years his junior. Three hundred sixty-four days later, decedent executed a new will in which he stated “I have no children.” A prior will provided bequests for plaintiff and plaintiff’s children. 

Legal suspense builds throughout this Opinion as the court methodically works through the six counts of the complaint which had been dismissed by the circuit court, knowing that what lies at the end will be the court’s treatment of the theories for “contract for adoption” and “equitable adoption.” The appellate court, which had reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of all counts, was affirmed in the entirety. 

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Rivera, People v. Evans, People v. Eppinger and People v. Somers.

CRIMINAL

People v. Rivera

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School Dist. No. 4 v. Ill. Educational Labor Relations Bd. and State Bank of Cherry v. CGB Enterprises, Inc. Quick Takes on Friday's criminal opinions will be available next week.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Wilmington, People v. Jackson and People v. Grant.

CRIMINAL

People v. Wilmington

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Poris v. Lake Holiday Property Owners Association and Bjork v. O'Meara and the criminal case People v. English.

CIVIL

Poris v. Lake Holiday Property Owners Association

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Cooney v. Rossiter, EMC Mortgage Company v. Kemp, In re Marriage of Mathis and In Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Marshal v. City of Chicago, Wilson v. Edward Hospital and Hernandez v. Pritkin.

Marshal v. City of Chicago

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC