Disposition of Petitions for Leave to Appeal

8 Citing cases

  1. In re Telegraph Properties, L.P.

    Nos. 04 C 6719, 04 C 7635, Case No. 02 B 24261, (04 A 00185) (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2005)

    Under Illinois contract law, a "party can be considered a 'prevailing party' for the purposes of awarding fees when he is successful on any significant issue in the action and achieves some benefit in bringing suit, receives a judgment in his favor, or by obtaining an affirmative recovery." Jackson v. Hammer, 274 Ill. App. 3d 59, 653 N.E.2d 809, 817 (4th Dist.),appeal denied, 164 Ill. 2d 565, 660 N.E.2d 1270 (1995).Accord J.B.

  2. Campos v. Coleman

    319 Conn. 36 (Conn. 2015)   Cited 31 times
    Recognizing new cause of action for loss of parental consortium after evaluating relevant public policy factors and concluding that factors weigh in favor of recognizing such claim

    See Patterson v. Hays, 623 So.2d 1142, 1146 (Ala.1993); Lewis v. Rowland, 287 Ark. 474, 478–79, 701 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal.3d 441, 451, 453, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal.Rptr. 302 (1977); Lee v. Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d 221, 233–34 (Colo.1986); Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 246 Conn. at 461, 477, 717 A.2d 1177; Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177, 179 n. 1 (D.C.1990); W.J. Bremer Co. v. Graham, 169 Ga.App. 115, 116–17, 312 S.E.2d 806 (1983), cert. denied, 252 Ga. 36, 312 S.E.2d 787 (1984); Halberg v. Young, 41 Haw. 634, 646 (1957); Green v. A.B. Hagglund & Soner, 634 F.Supp. 790, 796–97 (D.Idaho 1986); Karagiannakos v. Gruber, 274 Ill.App.3d 155, 158, 210 Ill.Dec. 737, 653 N.E.2d 932, appeal denied, 164 Ill.2d 565, 214 Ill.Dec. 322, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995); Dearborn Fabricating & Engineering Corp. v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind.1990); Klaus v. Fox Valley Systems, Inc., 259 Kan. 522, 531, 912 P.2d 703 (1996); Lambert v. Franklin Real Estate Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 780 (Ky.App.2000); Durepo v. Fishman, 533 A.2d 264, 264–66 (Me.1987); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 32–33, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Salin v. Kloempken, 322 N.W.2d 736, 742 (Minn.1982); Thompson v. Love, 661 So.2d 1131, 1135 (Miss.

  3. Campos v. Coleman

    319 Conn. 36 (Conn. 2014)

    See Patterson v. Hays, 623 So.2d 1142, 1146 (Ala.1993); Lewis v. Rowland, 287 Ark. 474, 478–79, 701 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal.3d 441, 451, 453, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal.Rptr. 302 (1977); Lee v. Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d 221, 233–34 (Colo.1986); Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 246 Conn. at 461, 477, 717 A.2d 1177; Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177, 179 n. 1 (D.C.1990); W.J. Bremer Co. v. Graham, 169 Ga.App. 115, 116–17, 312 S.E.2d 806 (1983), cert. denied, 252 Ga. 36, 312 S.E.2d 787 (1984); Halberg v. Young, 41 Haw. 634, 646 (1957); Green v. A.B. Hagglund & Soner, 634 F.Supp. 790, 796–97 (D.Idaho 1986); Karagiannakos v. Gruber, 274 Ill.App.3d 155, 158, 210 Ill.Dec. 737, 653 N.E.2d 932, appeal denied, 164 Ill.2d 565, 214 Ill.Dec. 322, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995); Dearborn Fabricating & Engineering Corp. v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind.1990); Klaus v. Fox Valley Systems, Inc., 259 Kan. 522, 531, 912 P.2d 703 (1996); Lambert v. Franklin Real Estate Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 780 (Ky.App.2000); Durepo v. Fishman, 533 A.2d 264, 264–66 (Me.1987); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 32–33, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Salin v. Kloempken, 322 N.W.2d 736, 742 (Minn.1982); Thompson v. Love, 661 So.2d 1131, 1135 (Miss.

  4. Rose v. U.S.

    929 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ill. 1996)   Cited 20 times
    Finding no evidence to support plaintiff's allegation of an unnatural accumulation of ice on the sidewalk where plaintiff provided no expert testimony about the slope

    The general rule in Illinois is that property owners, including public entities, are under no obligation to clear naturally accumulating snow and ice from their premises. Kiel v. City of Girard, 274 Ill. App.3d 821, 211 Ill.Dec. 291, 294, 654 N.E.2d 1101, 1104, appeal denied, 164 Ill.2d 565, 214 Ill. Dec. 322, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995); Madeo v. Tri-Land Properties, Inc., 239 Ill. App.3d 288, 179 Ill.Dec. 869, 870, 606 N.E.2d 701, 702 (1992); Williams v. Alfred N. Koplin Co., 114 Ill. App.3d 482, 70 Ill.Dec. 164, 168, 448 N.E.2d 1042, 1046 (1983) (no duty to remove snow and ice from sidewalks adjoining property). While a property owner must exercise reasonable care when taking steps to remove snow and ice from its property, Madeo, 179 Ill.Dec. at 870, 606 N.E.2d at 702, the "[m]ere removal of snow, which leaves a natural accumulation of ice on the surface, does not of itself constitute negligence," Webb v. Morgan, 176 Ill. App.3d 378, 125 Ill.Dec. 857, 860, 531 N.E.2d 36, 39 (1988), appeal denied, 124 Ill.2d 563, 129 Ill.Dec. 157, 535 N.E.2d 922 (1989); Williams, 70 Ill.Dec. at 168, 448 N.E.2d at 1046; Timmons v. Turski, 103 Ill. App.3d 36, 58 Ill.Dec. 884, 886, 430 N.E.2d 1135, 1137 (1981).

  5. Campos v. Coleman

    SC 19195 (Conn. Oct. 6, 2015)

    Johnson v. United States, United States District Court, Docket Nos. 1:14cv220-MHT, 1:14cv221-MHT, 1:14cv222-MHT (M.D. Ala. December 3, 2014); Lewis v. Rowland, 287 Ark. 474, 478-79, 701 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal. 3d 441, 451, 453, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal. Rptr. 302 (1977); Lee v. Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d 221, 233-34 (Colo. 1986); Pleasant ex rel. Pleasant v. Washington Sand & Gravel Co., 262 F.2d 471, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1958); W.J. Bremer Co. v. Graham, 169 Ga. App. 115, 116-17, 312 S.E.2d 806 (1983), cert. denied, 252 Ga. 36, 312 S.E.2d 787 (1984); Green v. A. B. Hagglund & Soner, 634 F. Supp. 790, 796-97 (D. Idaho 1986); Karagiannakos v. Gruber, 274 Ill. App. 3d 155, 158, 653 N.E.2d 932, appeal denied, 164 Ill. 2d 565, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995); Dearborn Fabricating & Engineering Corp. v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. 1990); Klaus v. Fox Valley Systems, Inc., 259 Kan. 522, 531, 912 P.2d 703 (1996); Lambert v. Franklin Real Estate Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 780 (Ky. App. 2000); Durepo v. Fishman, 533 A.2d 264, 264-66 (Me. 1987); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 32-33, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Thompson v. Love, 661 So. 2d 1131, 1135 (Miss. 1995); Powell v. American Motors Corp., 834 S.W.2d 184, 191 (Mo. 1992); Guenther ex rel. Guenther v. Stollberg, 242 Neb. 415, 421, 495 N.W.2d 286 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 368, 498 P.2d 366 (1972); Harrington v. Brooks Drugs, Inc., 148 N.H. 101, 104, 808 A.2d 532 (2002); Russell v. Salem Transportation Co., 61 N.J. 502, 504, 506, 295 A.2d 862 (1972); DeAngelis v. Lutheran Medical Center, 84 App. Div. 2d 17, 27, 445 N.Y.S.2d 188 (1981), aff'd, 58 N.Y.2d 1053, 449 N.E.2d 406, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1983); Vaughn v. Clarkson, 324 N.C. 108, 111, 376 S.E.2d 236 (1989); Hastings v. Ja

  6. Campos v. Coleman

    No. SC19195 (Conn. Oct. 6, 2015)

    See Patterson v. Hays, 623 So. 2d 1142, 1146 (Ala. 1993); Lewis v. Rowland, 287 Ark. 474, 478-79, 701 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal. 3d 441, 451, 453, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal. Rptr. 302 (1977); Lee v. Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d 221, 233-34 (Colo. 1986); Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 246 Conn. 461, 477; Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177, 179 n.1 (D.C. 1990); W.J. Bremer Co. v. Graham, 169 Ga. App. 115, 116-17, 312 S.E.2d 806 (1983), cert. denied, 252 Ga. 36, 312 S.E.2d 787 (1984); Halberg v. Young, 41 Haw. 634, 646 (1957); Green v. A. B. Hagglund & Soner, 634 F. Supp. 790, 796-97 (D. Idaho 1986); Karagiannakos v. Gruber, 274 Ill. App. 3d 155, 158, 653 N.E.2d 932, appeal denied, 164 Ill. 2d 565, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995); Dearborn Fabricating & Engineering Corp. v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. 1990); Klaus v. Fox Valleny Systems, Inc., 259 Kan. 522, 531, 912 P.2d 703 (1996); Lambert v. Franklin Real Estate Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 780 (Ky. App. 2000); Durepo v. Fishman, 533 A.2d 264, 264-66 (Me. 1987); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 32-33, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Salin v. Koempken, 322 N.W.2d 736, 742 (Minn. 1982); Thompson v. Love, 661 So. 2d 1131, 1135 (Miss. 1995); Powell v. American Motors Corp., 834 S.W.2d 184, 191 (Mo. 1992); Guenther ex rel. Guenther v. Stollberg, 242 Neb. 415, 421, 495 N.W.2d 286 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 368, 498 P.2d 366 (1972); Harrington v. Brooks Drugs, Inc., 148 N.H. 101, 104, 808 A.2d 532 (2002); Russell v. Salem Transportation Co., 61 N.J. 502, 504, 506, 295 A.2d 862 (1972); DeAngelis v. Lutheran Medical Center, 58 N.Y.2d 1053, 1055, 449 N.E.2d 406, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1983); Vaughn v. Clarkson, 324 N.C. 108, 111, 376 S.E.2d 236 (1989); Hastings v

  7. Mendillo v. Board of Education

    246 Conn. 456 (Conn. 1998)   Cited 287 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing general rule that minor children may bring action only by way of parent or next friend

    Thus, we disagree with the minor plaintiffs that there is an "emerging national trend" in favor of such recognition. The following jurisdictions have declined to recognize the cause of action: DeLoach v. Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro, 782 F.2d 438 (3d Cir. 1986) (general maritime law); Pleasant v. Washington Sand Gravel Co., 262 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1958); Green v. A.B. Hagglund Soner, 634 F. Sup. 790 (D. Idaho 1986); Lewis v. Rowland, 287 Ark. 474, 701 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., supra, 19 Cal.3d 441; Lee v. Colorado Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1986); Zorzos v. Rosen, 467 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1985); W. J. Bremer Co. v. Graham, 169 Ga. App. 115, 312 S.E.2d 806 (1983), cert. denied, 252 Ga. 36, 312 S.E.2d 787 (1984); Halberg v. Young, 41 Haw. 634 (1957), implied overruling recognized by Marquardt v. United Airlines, Inc., 781 F. Sup. 1487 (D.Haw. 1992); Karagiannakos v. Gruber, 274 Ill. App.3d 155, 653 N.E.2d 932, cert. denied, 164 Ill.2d 565, 660 N.E.2d 1271 (1995) (noting "[a] clear and consistent line of cases in the Illinois Appellate Court hold[ing] that a minor has no cause of action for loss of parental consortium when the parent survives"); Dearborn Fabricating Engineering Corp. Inc. v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1990); Audubon-Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 335 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 1983) (denying common-law cause of action for loss of parental consortium on grounds that such loss was recoverable by parent under Iowa statute); Klaus v. Fox Valley Systems, Inc., 259 Kan. 522, 912 P.2d 703 (1996); Durepo v. Fishman, 533 A.2d 264 (Me. 1987); Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 557 A.2d 210 (1989); Salin v. Kloempken, 322 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1982); Thompson v. Love, 661 So.2d 1131 (Miss. 1995); Barbera v. Brod-Dugan Co., 770 S.W.2d 318 (Mo.App. 1989); Bradford v. Union Electric Co., 598 S.W.2d 149 (Mo.App. 1979); Guenther v. Stollberg, 242 Neb. 415, 495 N.W.2d 286 (1993); Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 9

  8. Dunsmore Associates v. D'Alessio

    2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 195 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    However, efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of information for a large company are quite different for a small company, such as the plaintiff company. See Jackson v. Hammer, 274 Ill. App.3d 59, 653 N.E.2d 809, 815, rehearing denied, appeal denied, 164 Ill.2d 565, 660 N.E.2d 1270 (1995); Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, supra, 251 Conn. 80 ("What may be adequate under the peculiar facts of one case might be considered inadequate under the facts of another."). The defendant also points out that the plaintiff acquiesced in his taking files home.