Donald Patrick Eckler’s Post

When Section 1108 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended with respect to special interrogatories would render them useless. That was incorrect. Experience had shown that special interrogatories continue to be of great utility as shown most recently in McCaley v. Petrovic, 2024 IL App (1st) 230918-U in which the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of one of the defendants based the answer to the interrogatory. To learn more about how to use special interrogatories, please register for the upcoming medical malpractice seminar that will be put on by the Illinois Defense Counsel on August 15th. The registration link is in the comments. Nota bene: The decision would be in the comments, but it was withdrawn this week. we will see what becomes of the decision. the point however on the utility of special interrogatories remains. Regula 9(d) (2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure #medicalmalpractice

Applying the established principle that legal malpractice claims are not assignable the Illinois Appellate Court, First District affirmed dismissal against the lawyers in Cafe Holdings v. Burke Warren. The decision is below. Regula 9(d) (2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure #legalmalpractice

Who will dramatize this case first? Dateline or Lifetime? https://lnkd.in/gV3dWczG My posts and articles on the case in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin are in the comments. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

Following on my post from earlier today, if a submission is rejected by Illinois' Odyssey system, in order to get it file stamped for the same day as it was originally submitted I am told you need to click on the "click here" button in the grayed area of the below image. When you do that and resubmit the proper document it will have the original submitted date on the filed document. Please let me know if you have experience with this and if it works. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

You cannot make this stuff up. This the latest example of a submission being rejected. This time sensitive submission was rejected not be unflattened, but for not being unflattened enough. Below is the rejection and the explanation of the process from counsel who tried to get this corrected. A future post is coming on a trick that I am told works to get a rejected submission stamped with the originally submitted date on the filing once accepted. if you have examples of filings being rejected for reasons that seem less than just, please forward them to me. Together we can make a compelling case that the current system and the rules that go in effect on September 1, 2024 are not fit for the purpose of doing justice. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

Here is the scenario: Pre-suit plaintiff's counsel demands the $100,000 bodily injury policy limits to settle the claims against the driver and the named insured in a case where plaintiff lost a leg. The plaintiff requests tender of the policy limit by a specified date, proof of the $100,000 bodily injury policy limit, proof of no other insurance, and tender of check for $1,500 in property damage, In response, the insurer tendered the check for $100,000, provided the declaration page showing the $100,000 policy limit, a statement in the letter that there was no other coverage, and a check for $2,900 for the property damage (because the insurer believed that was the property calculation of damage and required under the regulations). The insurer also included a release that put the named insured only as a released party, but did not name the driver. The plaintiff cashed the checks, signed the release, and sued the driver. In response, the driver moved to dismiss claiming release and a settlement was reached between the plaintiff and the driver based on the letters. The circuit court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. Those are the facts in Smith v. Grove recently heard by the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District. The oral argument is in the comments and Dan Cotter and I will discuss the case on the next episode of the Podium and Panel Podcast that will be released tomorrow (7/14). Ken Levinson Stephen Hoffman James McKnight thoughts? Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

Litigating a spoliation claim is complex because under Illinois law, where the claim is derivative of the underlying negligence claim and, while it should be tried to one jury, the trial may require bifurcation of the issues. The recent decision in Seats v. Village of Dolton illustrates some of these issues. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

Follow the rules in the Seventh Circuit or get this in an entire section of the opinion after they have already ruled against you as happened in Mesenbring v. Rollins. The judicial version of kicking you while you are down. "Mrs. Mesenbring’s counsel failed to include the district court’s order on Rollins’s summary judgment motion in the required short appendix, in violation of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, our Circuit Rules, and our precedent. Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(1)(A)–(C) (mandating that the appellant’s appendix contain “(A) the relevant docket entries in the proceeding below; (B) the relevant portions of the … opinion; [and] (C) the judgment, order, or decision in question”); Cir. R. 30(a) ('The appellant shall submit … an appendix containing the judgment or order under review and any opinion, memorandum of decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law, or oral statement of reasons delivered by the trial court … upon the rendering of that judgment, decree, or order.'); United States v. McGhee, 98 F.4th 816, 825–26 (7th Cir. 2024) (admonishing the appellant’s counsel for failing to include the district court’s rulings and reasoning in the appendix, in violation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 and Circuit Rule 30). We remind counsel before this court to adhere to the Rules and our precedent that the appellant’s short appendix must contain the lower court’s opinion. The lower court’s opinion does not belong in a separate appendix. Cir. R. 30(a)No. 23-2473 7 ('The appellant shall submit, bound with the main brief, an appendix containing the judgment or order under review ….')" This will likely be discussed in a future Rule of the Week on the Podium and Panel Podcast with Dan Cotter. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

My column this week in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin discusses three recent legal malpractice decisions in which lawyers were successful in defeating the claims against them. Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure

My skepticism of the current efficacy of AI grows. I recently tried to get DALL-E to give me an image of a camel with its nose under the tent. Simple enough. It could no do it. I tried repeatedly. I even gave it an example. Perhaps it was user error, but it could understand the concept even when I explicitly and repeatedly described what I wanted. This is a simple and common enough concept that I would have expected that a large language model AI should have immediately grasped. An anecdote certainly, but Dan Cotter Frank Ramos Bruce de'Medici where am I wrong? Regula 9(d)(2) emendanda est #law #lawyers #appeals #attorneys #civilprocedure