Search

The article discusses a court case wherein the Fifth District Appellate Court ruled in favor of a pharmaceutical firm in a lawsuit filed by a consumer under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In De Bouse v. Bayer, AG, the former filed a class action complaint against Bayer and other manufacturers for concealing negative safety and efficacy data on pharmaceutical products sold in Illinois.

The article discusses a court case related to the rescission of contract in real estate sale. A buyer of a condominium and two parking spaces requested to terminate the contract on the ground that the developer violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and the contract lacks mutuality and contains an unenforceable penalty clause. A district court dismissed the case, but upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit because there was no material change in the contract.

The article reports that the Seventh Circuit Court recently reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud claim for the failure to state a claim. In its analysis, the Seventh Circuit looked to the statutory safe harbor provision, which forecloses liability if a forward-looking statement is accompanied by meaningful, cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement. The court struggled with what was meant by the term "meaningful cautionary statements."

The article discusses the court case Tyson Foods vs. Bouaphakeo wherein the Illinois Supreme Court dealt with the use of representative evidence in class and collective actions.

The article discusses the Illinois Fifth District Court case Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., which deals with the company's method for determining the amounts payable for treatmentscovered in insurance.

The article discusses the court case Ballard RN Center Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy and HomeCare Inc. under which the Illinois Supreme Court found that Ballard's skeletal class certification motion was sufficient and eliminated opportunities for defendants to moot class actions by tendering relief.

The article focuses on dismissal of class-action data breach lawsuits against hospital by second district court and states that advocate health was named in class action lawsuits filed by affected patients and sought class certification, attorney fees and statutory interest.

The article discusses certain general practices that should be followed to ensure approval of the class action settlement in the U.S. These include follow the Federal Judicial Center's checklist regarding notice; plan for and allow for sufficient notice commensurate with the case and simplify the claims processes; and minimize restrictions on a class member's ability to make use of a settlement award.

The article focuses on the plaintiff's practice to simultaneously file a motion for class certification and class action complaint. Topics discussed include a review of the court case Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy and Homecare, Inc. wherein the plaintiff attempted to apply the practice, the use of the court case Barber v. American Airlines, Inc. as reference by the appellate court to deliberate on the practice, and an assessment on the significance of the Ballard case.

The article discusses the court case John Buckley and Mama Grimm's Bakery Inc. v. Haitham Abuzir wherein the Illinois Appellate Court clarified the issue of piercing the corporate veil. The trial court dismissed the case because the individual defendant was not a shareholder, director, officer of employee of the defendant bakery corporation. The case emphasized the importance of quality legal advice, maintaining corporate formalities, and adequate capitalization.

The article discusses a court case Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothier, Inc, wherein Camasta accused the defendant of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud/Deceptive Business Practices Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the firm's practice of advertising the normal retail price as a temporary price reduction when actually the price was not reduced. It states that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence.

The article discusses a court case which focuses on the commercial benefit of the induction of former National Basketball Association (NBA) player Michael Jordan into the Hall of Fame. In the court case Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores Inc., the court favored the plaintiff as the subject speech was considered to be an unprotected commercial speech. Also mentioned are the implications of the case for trademark infringement and right of publicity.

The article discusses the court case of Neri v. Monroe, wherein the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a copyright infringement lawsuit because of the disorderly copyright registration of Quincy Neri. The lawsuit was filed against the Architectural Building Arts, designer Leslie Sager and condominium owner Eric Ferguson. It is mentioned that the Neri decision highlights the importance of providing a complete record to support any dispositive motions.

The author discusses the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case Bank of America, N.A. Versus Knight. He reports that the lawsuit was filed by Bank of America against the accountant of its borrowers, Knight Industries, Knight Quartz Flooring and Knigh-Celotex, for malpractice. He adds that the bank claimed that Knight's directors and managers looted the firm and that its accountants failed to detect the wrongdoing.

The article discusses the Burress-Taylor v. American Security Insurance Co. case where the appellate court decided that the trial court made an error by allowing the insurance carrier motion to dismiss the case. American Security was found to have misled the plaintiff via omissions. The carrier also failed to give a timely release of the claim's outstanding amount.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided to vacate a preliminary injunction entered against a social bookmarking company. In Flava Works Inc. versus Gunter, video production and distribution company Flava accused social bookmarking provider myVidster of contributory copyright infringement. The court noted that there was no evidence that visitors to the web page of myVidster were copying any videos owned by Flava.

The article discusses various aspects of the arbitration process. They include the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, drafting arbitration provisions, enforcement of arbitration provisions, jurisdiction and selection of the arbitration panel, appealability of arbitration awards, and international arbitrations. Arbitration process is used to resolve legal disputes.

The article discusses the case Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc. in which the plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that it received unsolicited fax advertisements for discounted travel from the defendants. The defendants countered to dismiss the complaint, asserting that private federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) claims were not actionable in Illinois state courts.

The article discusses the court case Sunbelt Rentals Inc. v. Ehlers wherein the Fourth District Appellate Court decided that the legitimate business interest test does not apply on the case. The court reasoned that when presented with the issue of whether a restrictive covenant should be enforced, the court should evaluate the time and territory restrictions contained therein only. It also reports that use of restrictive covenants could expand into fields not previously considered.

The article discusses the issues of whether claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) may be heard by Illinois courts. It specifically examines whether such claims are assignable and whether penalty limitations period should follow the two years prescribed in Illinois or the four years prescribed by federal law. The court ruled that no state legislation is required to enable TCPA claims and that TCPA is a remedial statute. The question on statue of limitations was unresolved as it was not relevant to the case being heard.

The article discusses the court case "WMS Gaming, Inc. v. WPC Gaming Productions, Ltd.," wherein the defendants chose to ignore the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In the case, the Seventh Circuit decided the appropriate amount of profits to be awarded to a trademark holder for the willful infringement of a trademark. It mentions that this case illustrates the dangers in not responding to a trademark infringement lawsuit, joined with making financial information available for public.

The article offers information on the court case DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services Inc. in Illinois. Accordingly, the Illinois Appellate Court First District in this case reversed a trial court's dismissal of a case involving contingent commissions paid to an insurance brokers. The court explained that the relationship between an insured and its broker continues to be a fudiciary.

The article discusses the case between Michael Jordan and Karla Knafel on the issue of extortion in the U.S. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Jordan regarding Knafel's attempt to extort $5 million and threatening to expose publicly their relationship. In addition, the court rejected Knafel's assertion of Jordan's paternity and found that Knafel's arguments on the chain of custody and authenticity were mere speculation and unsupported by any evidence.

The article discusses the case in which the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District held that California law is applicable to claims relating to the sales of computer processors in Illinois. The plaintiffs who were residents of Illinois and Missouri filed a nationwide lawsuit against Intel, manufacturer of processors they have purchased from retailers in Illinois and Missouri, after its disappointing performance. Details related to the decision of the court are presented.

The article focuses on the lawsuit Pappas v. Pella Corp., which involved concealment of a product defect. The plaintiff purchased windows from Pella Corp. which were later found to be defective and led to rotting of the premature wood. It was also declared by the purchaser that Pella knew of the defect but did not inform the plaintiff about it. The case was filed under Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claiming for fraud and unfair improvement.

The article presents a courts decision of a lawsuit which held that a judgment entered in favor of limited partners and against general partners is not subject to reversal because of the plaintiff's failure to join the limited partnership as a party. It explains why the court denied the general parties' claim that in order to completely determine the controversy, limited partnership must be included as a party in the suit.

The article focuses on the court ruling in Negro Nest LLC v. Mid-Northern Management Inc. in Illinois. The Fourth District Appellate Court disallowed the awarding of attorney's fees despite the fact that the contract between the parties stated an award of collection costs. The case set a precedent for both parties to be cautious in drafting contracts to clearly determine the payment of attorney's fees required to recover payment for a breach of contract.

The article focuses on the commercial law that prevails in the United States, giving reference to the Tirapelli v. Advance Equities, Inc. court case. The lawsuit was filed by the sophisticated investors who were deceived based upon oral statements not contained in the written agreements. The written agreements in question contained both non-reliance and integration clauses. The appellate court in this case stated that the plaintiffs' reliance on the alleged oral representations by the defendants was unreasonable as a matter of law. The combination of the non-reliance clause with the integration clause was found by the court to be dispositive and therefore, the court gave its judgment in favor of the defendants.

The article reports on the court case Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, U.S., 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a securities fraud action cannot satisfy the requirement of loss causation by alleging that a securities price at the time of purchase was inflated because of an alleged misrepresentation. The case was brought by stockholders of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Dura") who claimed that the price of Dura shares that they bought between April 15, 1997 and February 24, 1998 was inflated by the company's misrepresentations of two of its products, the Albuterol Spiros asthma-spray device and the Ceclor CD antibiotic. Dura's news releases during the subject period allegedly claimed good sales and suggested that the spray device, which required approval from the Food and Drug Administration, had been testing well.

Exemplifies the case Appelbaum versus Appelbaum faced by the First District Appellate Court in Illinois, on the issue of whether the Chinese Wall concept normally pertaining to conflicts of interest in professional setting policies in the context of enforcement of a restrictive covenant. Facts of the case; Countercharges filed by the defendant; Opinion of the court on the case being filed.

The article presents information on commercial law related to trademark infringement in the U.S. Parties using descriptive terms accused of trademark infringement frequently raise the defense of fair use of those descriptive terms. Under the Lanham Act a trademark may be used by someone other than the owner of the trademark provided that the terms are used: otherwise than as a trademark and descriptively and in good faith to describe that party's goods and services. Courts have differed over the significance of the likelihood of confusion to a fair use defense, and the obligation of an accused infringer raising such a defense to show that its use is unlikely to cause confusion.

Discusses the 'Horwitz v. Holabird and Root' Supreme Court case in Illinois in May 2004. Court ruling that the client is not liable for attorney's exercise of independent professional judgement; Details of the case and legal precedents; Implications on commercial law.

The article presents information on commercial law in the U.S. The Seventh Circuit outlined that the first step in determining indispensability is to decide whether if the person could be joined, the person would have to be joined. One of the circumstances in which a party would have to be joined would be if the party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in its absence may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided on whose consent is necessary in a claim brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In Soppet and Tang v. Enhanced Recovery Company, a class action lawsuit was filed against a bill collector which services telecommunications firm AT&T to collect amounts owed to it by various customers. The district judge's decision was made as an issue for interlocutory review.

The article reports on a class action lawsuit involving the high price of gasoline. The author says that in Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., the plaintiff sued five of the eight largest oil companies and sought class certification for claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reportedly rejected the lawsuit, as it found that the plaintiff failed to prove that in the suit he had filed, common issues predominated over individual issues.

The article reports on the controversy whether a quantum meruit claim is available for contractors who breach the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act. The reference that oral contracts under the Act are unlawful has been debated as an inaccurate legal term to revoke the common law resolution of quantum meruit. This commercial law issue, however, may have to be reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The article discusses the court case, Kunkel v. P.K. Dependable Construction, where plaintiff filed claim of breach of contract and warranty under the Home Repair Remodelling Act and claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of liability on the breach of contract and warranty claim by not providing the homeowner with a copy of a consumer's right brochure. The court found that it was not enough to establish a violation of the ICFA.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart after purchasing a trampoline online, alleging that Wal-Mart charged unauthorized sales tax on shipping charges for goods purchased through its website. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the shipping charges were subject to sales tax as a matter of law and the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

The article focuses on some provisions of the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007 which amends some provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the U.S. Accordingly, the provision which amends FCRA details some elements on how not to be of willful noncompliance. Moreover, the ACT also amends the provision of civil damages contained in the FCRA.

The article discusses a court case filed by wood purchaser Kitzes against Home Depot USA Inc. for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). Kitzes' alleges that Home Depot sold wood products for outdoor residential use that were treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) preservatives. The trial court denied the Kitzes' motion for class certification and Illinois First District Appellate Court affirms the decision.

The article reports on the judgment by the Appellate Court of Illinois regarding a commercial law. It notes that the plaintiffs sued both the dealership and Ford Motor Company after experiencing a problem with the purchased vehicle. The company moved for summary judgments in the trial court on the grounds that the dealership was not their agent. Furthermore, the plaintiffs prevailed on their claim against the dealership, but the court ruled in favor of Ford on the consumer fraud claim.

The article reports on the Illinois Appelate Court's decision over a case involving a car buyer who sells car in excess of its market value. The plaintiff argued that he established damages since two of the witnesses attested that the truck's value was decreased at the time it was purchased. The defendant replied that the plaintiff failed to establish present damages. The Appellate Court reversed the decision since the plaintiff provided evidence of his damages at the time of acceptance.