A tortfeaser who fraudulently conceals a legal malpractice cause of action can be sued even after the statute of repose has run, the supreme court held last month.
Successful legal malpractice plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages they would have once but for the defendant lawyers' malpractice, the high court ruled earlier this summer.
In Marshall v Burger King, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that public businesses abutting the street have a duty to protect invitees from dangerous drivers.
Should a defendant-doctor's medical records be available to a plaintiff who alleges that the doctor's poor health caused him to deliver substandard care?
On April 19, 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Whiteside County, granting summary judgment to the defendant campground owner because she had neither a duty to keep the campground clear of fallen walnuts nor a duty to warn patrons of the danger posed by such walnuts.
On March 10, 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, answered two certified questions posed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, regarding the liability of a railroad company to a trespasser.
On January 20, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision of both the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, and the Circuit Court of Cook County, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
A recent case – involving none other than Dennis Rodman – holds that plaintiffs must pay tax on the portion of a settlement award deemed payment to a p.i. client for his or her silence.
The Illinois Supreme Court barred plaintiffs' class action claim and overturned a $10-plus billion award against Philip Morris. But experts doubt the case will have much precedential power outside Illinois.
The authors argue that some courts have unwisely expanded the"distraction"exception to the rule barring recovery for injury causedby an open and obvious danger.
On June 30, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the third district's ruling that personal injury defendants may be liable for a plaintiff's original medical bill, not the lower amount negotiated by his or her insurer.
How much control must general contractors in Illinois exercise over a workplace to make them liable for injuries to a subcontractor's workers? A look at the conflicting cases.
On November 18, 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action.
The Illinois Supreme Court holds that clients are not liable for lawyers' intentional torts unless they authorized, directed, or ratified the lawyers' conduct.
A mother now has a private right of action if she is denied the right to breastfeed by the owner or manager of a public or private location, other than a private residence or place of worship.
Plaintiffs are using fraud-in-the-inducement theory to turn breach-of-contract allegations into tort claims. A new case gives defendants a way to fight back.
The third district appellate court ruled early this year that a plaintiff is entitled to the amount of a hospital's undiscounted bill, not a lower amount negotiated by the plaintiff's insurance carrier.
