Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., Docket No. 127801 (February 2, 2023)

The Illinois Supreme Court today released its groundbreaking decision involving statute of limitations in the notorious Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). I have written extensively on the onslaught of complaints on this issue pending in both federal and state courts.

In Tims v. Black Horse, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the First District Appellate Court and found that the five-year statute of limitations period in section 13-205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure applies to sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(e) of BIPA, and the one-year statute of…
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court’s Major BIPA Decision (Tims v. Black Horse)

INTRODUCTION

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law that largely regulates pension, 401(k), and similar employer provided retirement benefit plans. The statute is intensive, it provides strict regulations pertaining to fiduciary duties by employers and similar sorts of requirements. While lawsuits arising from ERISA are often initiated by employees, there is also an enforcement mechanism from the Department of Labor. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes v. Northwestern considered whether the University breached its fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to remote certain low performing retirement options from its basket of options. The Seventh…
Continue Reading Hughes v. Northwestern: ERISA’s and the Duty of Prudence

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, South Dakota v. Wayfair, is the most significant case in the realm of State and Local Taxation over the last several decades. This case nixed the physical presence rule that had been originally established in the 1967 case, National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Department of Revenue,1 and later reaffirmed the 1993 case, Quill v. North Dakota.2

BACKGROUND

The Quill decision established a physical presence rule which stated that states were not allowed to require out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax if they did not…
Continue Reading The Supreme Court’s Decision to Overrule Quill’s Physical Presence Requirement and its Impact on State Sales Tax (South Dakota v. Wayfair)

People v. Sandoval, 2023 IL App (2d) 220155

The Second District Appellate Court in Illinois recently heard the case of People v. Sandoval. Sandoval is being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The case centers around the question of whether the trial court should have considered the official reports from the arresting officer, McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputy Richard Kim as evidence, in its decision to rescind the summary suspension of Sandoval’s driving privileges. While the court took judicial notice of the police officer’s sworn report, it did not admit the report into evidence. The State appealed this…
Continue Reading DUI Case Remanded, After Trial Court Admits Officer’s Reports by Judicial Notice, Rather Than as Evidence (People v. Sandoval)

HB1188 Phase Out Corporate Giveaways Act

HB 1255 Local Government Business Anti-Poaching Act

INTRODUCTION

Two bills have been recently introduced in the Illinois House of Representatives that look to limit governments’ ability to attract businesses, manufacturing, and jobs. The bills aim to limit the ability of states and municipalities (respectively) from offering corporate incentives tied to relocating projects, developments, or headquarters. While these bills, HB1188 and HB1255, aim to address different issues but share the common theme of limiting incentives to businesses and corporations.

PROPOSALS

HB1188, the Phase Out Corporate Giveaways Act, aims to create the Phase Out Corporate Giveaways…
Continue Reading Pair of Bills Proposed in Illinois House Meant to Limit Corporate Incentives

City of Rockford v. Gilles, 2022 IL App (2d) 210521

Arellano v. McDonough, U.S., No. 21-432 (January 23, 2023)

INTRODUCTION

The first case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 term is Arellano v. McDonough, a unanimous decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In its opinion, the Supreme Court denied a veteran’s disability benefit application due to missing the one year statutory deadline. The Court ruled that equitable tolling was not available to remedy the missed deadline, primarily due to the fact that Congress included 16 different exceptions to the statutory period, which does not include equitable tolling.

This…
Continue Reading Different Reasons for Denying Equitable Tolling: A Comparative Analysis of Arellano v. McDonough and City of Rockford v. Gilles

On January 20, 2023, Judge Morrison of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Effingham County ruled in favor of guns rights activists by issuing a temporary restraining order for HB 5471. HB 5471 is the gun control legislation that was recently signed into law by Governor Pritzker. The plaintiffs in the case are represented by Tom Devore, the former Republican nominee for Illinois Attorney General who was recently defeated by Kwame Raoul by double digits. The pair are now likely to continue to face off in court, as Attorney General Raoul’s quickly filed its notice of appeal.

Plaintiffs sought an emergency…
Continue Reading Effingham County Judge Issues TRO on New Illinois Gun Legislation (Accuracy Firearms v. Pritzker)

This past year, I have written about state noncompete regulations in both Illinois and California. I noted that the Illinois regulation seems to be fairly well-tailored, so far as it still allows executives (and any employees making more than $75,000) to be subject to these agreements, includes notice requirements, and it categorically precludes noncompete agreements for low-wage workers.

I also wrote that the California noncompete ban goes to far, as it bans noncompete agreements across the board. While there are still trade secret, intellectual property, and similar concerns to protect companies. Even a narrowly tailored agreement, say to restrict…
Continue Reading FTC Proposes New Noncompete Regulations

This past October, a products liability claim was filed against L’Oréal in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the hair relaxers sold by the company are linked to cancer. The complaint alleges that the relaxers are primarily marketed and used by black women, and that the chemicals involved are linked with uterine cancer.

Count one of the complaint is for failure to warn, a strict liability action. It claims that the company knew, or should have known, that the chemicals included in the product were linked with a significant increase in the chance of developing cancer. It further alleges…
Continue Reading L’Oréal Faces More Product Liability Lawsuits Over Hair Relaxers, Which Are Primarily Marketed to Black Women

Since the 1960’s, Rosati’s has built itself into a powerhouse in the pizza dine-in and take-out business. While it has long been a dominant player in the Chicago pizza market, it has also expanded into a national presence. While disputes have arisen throughout the years between family members regarding how to best run the business, those have largely been resolved with various fixes through the years.

In the late 1990’s, after a hotly contested decade, the family decided to establish a new holding company which would license the intellectual property of the Rosati’s brand to each of the ten shareholders.
Continue Reading Frozen Pizza Dispute Puts Rosati’s in Court (Rosati v. Rosati)

This post reviews an older decision, a 2007 decision authored by Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case involved a Metra engineer who brought forward a lawsuit against the company (formally known as Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R. Corp.), the lawsuit alleged negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and a claim under the Locomotive Inspection Act. The engineer alleged that he injured his forehead after bumping into a sun visor that was facing down, after the engineer had entered the train early in the morning, while it was dark. He claimed that the light…
Continue Reading Posner Opinion in Railroad Negligence Case Emphasizes Need for Proper Evidence and Perhaps Demonstratives (Coffey v. Metra)

Thank you for reading – I am excited to be publishing and working with LexBlog on this blog. The purpose of this blog is simple, to provide a place to write about interesting cases that come up, from the perspective as a law student. While LexBlog focuses on its work with attorneys, I am not an attorney, just a J.D. Candidate at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law. As such, the purpose of this blog is for educational purposes, to provide interesting insights into the legal system in the region (and sometimes beyond). My approach to this blog…
Continue Reading Purpose of this Blog

Gardner, et al. v. MeTV, 1:22-cv-05963

A class action complaint was filed against MeTV in the Northern District of Illinois at the end of October. Like many complaints of this nature, the allegations arise from MeTV’s use of Facebook Pixel, which purportedly discloses information about the video viewing habits of subscribers.

While the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) has been frequently used to combat disclosing personally identifiable biometric information, the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) dates back several decades, and it prevents companies from disclosing personally identifiable video viewing history or information.

While sharing aggregate information likely does not run…
Continue Reading Video Privacy Protection Act Complaint Filed Against MeTV (Gardner, et al. v. MeTV)