Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack

14 Citing cases

  1. Ambrose v. BackPage.com, L.L.C.

    2019 Ill. App. 190619 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    (3) the convenience to the court in managing its docket and efficiently using judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons who are not parties to the civil proceeding; and (5) the interests of the public in the pending civil and criminal actions. [Citations.]" Pasamba, 2014 IL App (1st) 133551, ¶ 52 (citing Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002)). Courts also consider the posture of the criminal proceeding and whether both actions were brought by the government.

  2. Cordeck Sales v. Construction Systems

    382 Ill. App. 3d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Finding that an overstatement in a mechanic's lien claim did not constitute constructive fraud because aside from the lien claim itself there was no other evidence from which fraudulent intent could be inferred

    As a general rule, the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination "does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings." JacksonvilleSavings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1135 (2002); see also People ex rel. Hartigan v. Kafka Sons Building Supply Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d 115, 119 (1993). The party seeking to stay the civil proceeding in which the fifth amendment has been invoked bears the burden of proving that a stay is appropriate.

  3. Frederick v. Gaca

    2021 Ill. App. 3d 210095 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Instead, when evaluating whether to stay a civil suit to prevent compulsory self-incrimination, this court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review. Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1137 (2002). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would take the same view."

  4. Universal Metro Asian Servs. v. Mahmood

    2021 Ill. App. 200584 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 11 times

    However, "the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination 'does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding[ ] pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings.' " Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 334, 348-49 (2008) (quoting Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1135 (2002)). The party seeking the stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom the stay is operative.

  5. Davies ex rel. Harris v. Pasamba

    2014 Ill. App. 133551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 35 I. Standard of Review ¶ 36 The entry of a stay maintains the case in its existing state without ruling on the dispute between the parties (Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill.App.3d 611, 615, 200 Ill.Dec. 129, 635 N.E.2d 468 (1994) ), and it is within the probate court's discretion (Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1136, 261 Ill.Dec. 211, 762 N.E.2d 1138 (2002) ). When a criminal action is pending during the course of a civil action, a court can stay the civil action to protect a party's right against self-incrimination.

  6. Davies v. Pasamba

    2014 Ill. App. 133551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    ¶ 35 I. Standard of Review ¶ 36 The entry of a stay maintains the case in its existing state without ruling on the dispute between the parties (Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill. App. 3d 611, 615 (1994)), and it is within the probate court's discretion (Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002)). When a criminal action is pending during the course of a civil action, a court can stay the civil action to protect a party's right against self-incrimination.

  7. CHB Uptown Properties, LLC v. Financial Place Apartments, LLC

    378 Ill. App. 3d 105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    In determining the propriety of a stay, the court may consider factors including but not limited to the following: (1) the posture of the criminal proceeding; (2) the interests of and burdens on defendant, including the extent to which defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated if a stay is denied; (3) the effect on the public interests at stake if a stay were issued; (4) the plaintiff's interest in expeditious resolution of the civil case and any prejudice to plaintiff in not proceeding; (5) whether the criminal and civil actions involve the same subject matter; and (6) whether both actions were brought by the government. See Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovak, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002). A court may also take into consideration the need to manage its docket and the efficient use of its judicial resources.

  8. People v. Houar

    365 Ill. App. 3d 682 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 69 times

    " Giampa, 89 Ill. App. 3d at 613. In Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (2002), the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to stay civil proceedings in light of a pending criminal investigation. The defendant was accused of illegally receiving funds belonging to the bank while he was employed there.

  9. Doe v. Johnston

    2022 Ill. App. 220210 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    But "the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his [or her] fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination 'does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding[ ] pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings.'" Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill.App.3d 334, 348-49 (2008) (quoting Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1135 (2002)). The party seeking the stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances, outweighing potential harm to the party against whom the stay operates.

  10. Barnhart v. Vill. of Buckner

    NO. 13-CV-00772-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2013)

    Plaintiff Barnhart argues, in opposition, that the United States Constitution does not "require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings." In support of her contention that McKinney is not entitled to a stay of the civil proceedings, Barnhart relies on Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (2002). However, the holding in Jacksonville is inapposite.