The Case

Wilkinson v. Farmers Holding Companies involved a dispute under a Missouri statute about an employee’s post-termination rights to a “service letter” stating the nature and duration of his service. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the company based on the company’s argument that it was not the actual employer. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed only the procedural law regarding summary judgment and plaintiff’s failure to abide by the procedures of Rule 74.04 in responding to summary judgment.

In particular, the Court noted that although the Plaintiff’s “point relied on” argued that summary judgment is an extreme and…
Continue Reading ITT at 33: Granting Summary Judgment in Missouri is Still Not “Extreme or Drastic”

Using Deposition Testimony to Secure Summary Judgment

In asbestos products liability matters, motions for summary judgment are a standard part of case workup. Although summary judgment is an extreme measure that’s rarely granted, a recent Cook County case (Paul Enright, Special Administrator of the Estate of Susan Enright v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al.) demonstrates it is possible.

Summary judgment motions focus on case-specific facts and often rely on deposition testimony from the plaintiff and fact witnesses. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the defense in Enright argued that plaintiff had not met her evidentiary burden and thus the case…
Continue Reading Building the Record: How Depositions Shape Summary Judgment Orders

Case Background

Marsha J. Martin filed an amended complaint[1] alleging that she received an e-mail that appeared to be from Coastal Customs Builders requesting payment for construction services provided to her. Martin further alleged that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Coastal Customs’ e-mail had been hacked. Martin ultimately wire transferred funds to the hacker’s account at Fifth Third Bank. The hacker then withdrew the funds and transferred them elsewhere. According to Martin, Fifth Third Bank was unable to recover the funds that were wired.

Under a theory of negligence, Martin alleged that Fifth Third Bank knew the hacker…
Continue Reading Not My Customer, Not My Problem? Assessing Whether a Duty May be Owed to a Non-Customer Under Martin v. Fifth Third Bank

Public AI Tools and Discovery Exposure

Generative AI tools have quickly become part of daily life for businesses and individuals across Illinois and Missouri. Platforms such as ChatGPT and other large-language models often feel conversational and private, which can foster a false sense of security. Recent litigation, however, demonstrates that what users type into these tools may be stored, logged, and later produced in court. For companies operating under Illinois and Missouri discovery rules—both of which allow broad discovery of electronically stored information—this risk is particularly acute.

One of the clearest examples comes from copyright litigation brought by major publishers.
Continue Reading AI, Privacy, and Discovery: Think Before You Prompt

Missouri Case Highlights the Problems

The advancement of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) tools has revolutionized many industries, including the legal profession. However, the use of Gen AI in legal practice is not without significant risks. As discussed below, Kruse v. Karlen highlights the importance of accuracy, ethical responsibility, and compliance with procedural rules when using AI tools to prepare court documents.

In Kruse v. Karlen, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and imposed sanctions after a pro se appellant submitted an appellate brief riddled with fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities. 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App.
Continue Reading Tips for Avoiding the Pitfalls of AI in Legal Practice: Missouri’s Evolving Rules on AI Disclosure

The Rollout of a Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy

On March 10, 2026 the Department of Justice (DOJ) rolled out what it called its “first-ever” Department-wide corporate enforcement policy for virtually all federal white-collar criminal matters. The department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) is certainly not all new, as it reaffirms past enforcement discretion principles based on disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. Yet, it applies more broadly to all types of white-collar cases (except antitrust matters subject to the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy). Stressing the goals to promote uniformity, predictability, transparency, and fairness, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche noted the CEP:

…
Continue Reading New Comprehensive Justice Department Corporate Enforcement Policy

Background and Context

A recent Madison County, Illinois,[1] case explored whether the actions of an insurance carrier could waive an insured’s personal jurisdiction defense in an asbestos exposure wrongful death case. This appears to be an issue of first impression in Madison County asbestos litigation, but plaintiffs could raise this argument in other types of litigation and in other courts as well.

The Court ultimately found there had been no waiver and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the arguments presented show how early communications can create risk.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiffs Sharon…
Continue Reading Carriers Beware! Avoid Waiving Personal Jurisdiction Defense of Your Insured

In a recent 9-0 holding, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state-level “affidavit of merit” requirements for medical malpractice suits do not apply in federal court. This holding creates a notable divide in state and federal practice as more than half of all U.S. states have similar state-level pleadings requirements. 

The case, Berk v. Choy, was filed in federal court but governed by Delaware state substantive law. Delaware, like many states, requires that plaintiffs filing medical malpractice suits submit an affidavit of merit — a statement from a qualified expert certifying that the lawsuit has a reasonable basis — either with…
Continue Reading No Certificate, No Problem: Recent Supreme Court Decision Clears the Path for Federal Medical Malpractice Claims

Legal Rule

Illinois’s discretionary immunity rules are found in sections 2‑109 and 2‑201 of the Tort Immunity Act. Together, these provisions protect local governments and their employees from liability for policy decisions and discretionary judgments made in good faith. In short, a public employee—and by extension the public body—is not liable for injuries that result from discretionary decisions made performing their official duties.

The Conscious Decision Standard

For discretionary immunity under the Act to apply, a local government must present evidence that it made a conscious decision with respect to the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint. This requirement…
Continue Reading Illinois Discretionary Immunity: The Local Government Knowledge Requirement

Background

Plaintiff Raymond Winkler[i] hired defendant Danna Pools, Inc. (DPI) to construct an in-ground swimming pool at plaintiff’s home. The contract guaranteed DPI’s work would be free from defects in material and workmanship for 14 months from the date the pool was filled with water.  It also expressly voided all warranties if maintenance, service, or warranty work was performed by anyone other than DPI. The pool was filled with water in July 2019.

During the 2019 season, defendant performed various services, including vacuuming, chemical testing, routine maintenance, and training plaintiff on proper pool maintenance and chemical levels. A maintenance…
Continue Reading Breach of Contract Claim Fails When Plaintiff Can’t Prove Damages

Introduction

In January 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the antitrust agencies’ annual revised filing fees for premerger review of sizable transactions and reporting thresholds for review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (HSR Act). The adjusted HSR Act thresholds are based on annual changes in the U.S. GNP (Gross National Product). For 2026, the HSR jurisdictional thresholds and fee bands have increased and apply to transactions closing on or after February 17, 2026.

Currently, the HSR Act requires parties to certain mergers, acquisitions of assets or voting securities, or joint ventures to complete premerger…
Continue Reading New Federal Premerger Filing Thresholds Set

Consumer Opposition

U.S. federal antitrust laws allow consumers to sue over mergers and acquisitions. On December 8, 2025, an HBO Max subscriber, Michelle Fendelander, filed a class-action lawsuit against Netflix claiming that the proposed Netflix/Warner Bros. acquisition would reduce competition in the U.S. video-on-demand market. In the complaint, Fendelander, a resident of Las Vegas and subscriber to WBD’s HBO Max, claims she and other consumers “will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money.” Fendelander v. Netflix, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-10521 (N.D. Cal.)

The complaint also says that if WBD is removed as an…
Continue Reading Stranger Things and Harry Potter Under One Roof: Status of Netflix’s Warner Bros. Acquisition