Search

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 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 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 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 focuses on the lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler Corp. filed by William L. White who alleged that the industry held back a material defect in making and selling jeep vehicles in Illinois. However , the First District Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the case, since the plaintiff failed to plead the actual damages on stating the nondisclosure claim under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.