Pres. Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One

12 Citing cases

  1. Village of Riverwoods v. BG Ltd. Partnership

    276 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 45 times
    Finding waiver where appellant failed to cite supporting authority

    We now examine whether this fact was sufficient to support the State's defense that the Court of Claims had sole jurisdiction over such a property dispute. Sovereign immunity in Illinois exists pursuant to statute and mandates that the State or a department of the State cannot be a defendant in an action brought directly in the circuit court. (705 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992); President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield (1994), 271 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1054, 208 Ill.Dec. 376, 649 N.E.2d 432.) Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act states:

  2. PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co.

    216 Ill. 2d 250 (Ill. 2005)   Cited 36 times
    Discussing "officer suit" exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity

    In October 1994, the appellate court affirmed. See President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, 271 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (1994). The hotel ventures' request for rehearing in the appellate court was denied on May 5, 1995.

  3. Schwartz v. Cortelloni

    177 Ill. 2d 166 (Ill. 1997)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that a document that was filed with the court became a public record and, thus, did not contain confidential information for purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct

    The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of establishing that the present and former representations are substantially related. Hannan v. Watt, 147 Ill. App.3d 456, 464 (1986). If a substantial relationship between the two matters is not shown, then no breach of the duty of confidentiality will be found. President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill. App.3d 1048 (1994). Attorney disqualification is a drastic measure because it destroys the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting a party from representation by counsel of his or her choosing.

  4. Welch v. Illinois Supreme Court

    322 Ill. App. 3d 345 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 64 times
    Ruling that “ State employee's violation of * * * statute does not necessarily avert the application of sovereign immunity,” and holding that “[r]egardless of whether [an Illinois Supreme Court Justice] had violated [a supreme court rule] it does not necessarily mean that he acted beyond the ‘scope of his authority’ and does not, by itself, preclude the application of sovereign immunity”

    The characterization of an action depends upon the factual underpinnings of the case and the law necessary to arrive at a conclusion. President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, 271 Ill. App.3d 1048, 1057 (1995). A review of both complaints reveals that the thrust of the amended claim remained a claim for damages for breach of contract.

  5. Wozniak v. Conry

    288 Ill. App. 3d 129 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 22 times
    In Wozniak the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had interfered with his employment relationship when the defendant knowingly made false allegations about the plaintiff.

    Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the supervisor would be acting within the scope of his duties by making truthful statements of the general type alleged. Cf. President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill. App.3d 1048, 1057, 649 N.E.2d 432, 438-39 (1994) (focusing on whether individual defendant had authority to take general type of action giving rise to contract claim, not whether action violated contract). However, this rule — that a suit against a state employee constitutes a suit against the state when a judgment for a plaintiff could control the state's actions — is not without limits.

  6. Dougherty v. Zimbler

    922 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ill. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    Section 30.1 of the Illinois Public Accounting Act delineates a narrow scope for accountants' liability to third parties. See Robin v. Falbo, No. 91 C 2894, 1992 WL 188429 at 8-9 (N.D.Ill. July 24, 1992); Endo v. Albertine, 812 F. Supp. 1479, 1495 (N.D.Ill. 1993); President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield; 271 Ill. App.3d 1048, 1055, 208 Ill.Dec. 376, 382, 649 N.E.2d 432, 438 (1st Dist. 1994). It provides that, with only two exceptions, "[n]o person, partnership or corporation licensed or authorized to practice [public accountancy] under this Act . . . shall be liable to persons not in privity of contract . . . for civil damages resulting from acts, omissions, decisions or other conduct in connection with professional services performed. . . ." 225 ILCS 450/30.1. The first exception to the privity requirement permits liability for "such acts, Omissions, decisions or conduct that constitute fraud or intentional misrepresentations.

  7. Abo-Saif v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.

    2022 Ill. App. 211091 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    "If a judgment for plaintiff could operate to control the actions of the State or subject it to liability, the action is effectively against the State and is barred by sovereign immunity." President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1054-55 (1994). All three of the criteria for defendant's invocation of its sovereign immunity are met in this case.

  8. Watkins v. Office of State Appellate Defender

    2012 Ill. App. 111756 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Dismissing an IHRA retaliation claim against the Illinois Appellate Defender personally, and noting that, "at least in cases where the individual acted within the scope of his employment," Modern Metal "explicitly rejected" the argument that the IHRA provides for "liability against an individual employee ... because it prohibits a ‘person’ from retaliating against another for filing a charge"

    Accordingly, we now turn to plaintiffs' contention that the language of the Human Rights Act indicates the legislature's intent to waive the State's immunity to claims brought under that statute. ¶ 21 The doctrine of sovereign immunity exists in Illinois pursuant to the Immunity Act, which mandates that the State or a department of the State cannot be a defendant in an action brought directly in the circuit court, except where the State has expressly consented to be sued. 745 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2010); President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1054, 208 Ill.Dec. 376, 649 N.E.2d 432, 437 (1994). The Immunity Act states that, except for a few enumerated exclusions, “the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court.” 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2010).

  9. State Building Venture v. O'Donnell

    391 Ill. App. 3d 554 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    705 ILCS 505/8(b) (West 2006). The prohibition against making the State a party to a suit founded upon a contract entered into between a plaintiff and the State cannot be evaded by making an agent of the State the defendant when the real claim is against the State. President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 1054, 649 N.E.2d 432 (1995). However, an action filed in the circuit court against a State official in her official capacity is not subject to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds if the complaint alleges that the official is enforcing an unconstitutional law or acting in violation of law and thus acting beyond her authority. Smith, 113 Ill. 2d at 131-32.

  10. People v. Downey

    351 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    The record in this case contains no evidence establishing a substantial relationship between Brown's civil matter and defendant's criminal prosecution. In President Lincoln Hotel Venture v. Bank One, Springfield, 271 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1060, 208 Ill.Dec. 376, 649 N.E.2d 432 (1994), the appellate court explained: