DOCSLIB.ORG

Efiled: Jan 17 2018 12:31PM EST Filing ID 61576501 Case Number 443,2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efiled: Jan 17 2018 12:31PM EST Filing ID 61576501 Case Number 443,2017 EFiled: Jan 17 2018 12:31PM EST Filing ID 61576501 Case Number 443,2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM E. PETTIT and SUSAN VAN HOUTEN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly No. 443, 2017 Situated On Appeal from the Court of Appellants, Plaintiffs-Below, Chancery v. C.A. No. 2017-0125-JTL HD SUPPLY HOLDINGS, INC., Appellee, Defendant-Below. APPELLEE’S CORRECTED ANSWERING BRIEF Srinivas M. Raju (#3313) OF COUNSEL: Matthew W. Murphy (#5938) Lee Ann Russo Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. JONES DAY One Rodney Square 77 West Wacker Drive 920 North King Street Chicago, IL 60601 Wilmington, DE 19801 (312) 782-3939 (302) 651-7700 Walter W. Davis Attorneys for Appellee, Defendant- Ashley F. Heintz Below Robert A. Watts JONES DAY 1420 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 521-3939 Dated: January 17, 2018 RLF1 18762148v.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CITATIONS ....................................................................................... iii NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ....................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 8 A. HD Supply Holdings, Inc.—The “Company” ........................... 8 B. Equity Grants Under the 2013 Omnibus Incentive Plan ........... 8 C. The Power Solutions Sale ........................................................ 10 D. Plaintiffs’ Demand And The Administrator’s Decision .......... 11 E. Plaintiffs’ Illinois Action ......................................................... 12 F. Proceedings Below ................................................................... 14 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 17 I. THE COURT OF CHANCERY PROPERLY GRANTED JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN THE COMPANY’S FAVOR BECAUSE THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE PLAN FORECLOSES PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ............................................................................................. 19 A. Question Presented ................................................................... 19 B. Scope of Review ...................................................................... 19 C. Merits of Argument .................................................................. 19 II. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IS MOOT; REGARDLESS, THE COURT OF CHANCERY DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING IT ....................................................... 39 A. Question Presented ................................................................... 39 B. Scope of Review ...................................................................... 39 C. Merits of Argument .................................................................. 39 III. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION IS MOOT; REGARDLESS, THE COURT OF CHANCERY PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO DENY IT ............................... 43 -i- RLF1 18762148v.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page A. Question Presented ................................................................... 43 B. Scope of Review ...................................................................... 43 C. Merits of Argument .................................................................. 43 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 46 Exhibit Pettit v. HD Supply Holdings, Inc., No. 1-16-3213 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. Sept. 27, 2017) (ORDER) ............................................... Exhibit A -ii- RLF1 18762148v.1 TABLE OF CITATIONS Page(s) CASES Abt v. Harmony Mill Ltd. P’ship, 1992 WL 380615 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 1992) ....................................................... 22 Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Hayes, 106 A.3d 1029 (Del. 2013) ................................................................................. 26 Amer v. NVF Co., 1994 WL 279981 (Del. Ch. June 15, 1994) ........................................................ 41 AT&T Corp. v. Lillis, 953 A.2d 241 (Del. 2008) ................................................................................... 31 BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2009 WL 264088 (Del. Ch. Feb. 3, 2009) .......................................................... 37 Bokat v. Getty Oil Co., 262 A.2d 246 (Del. 1970) ................................................................................... 39 In re Boyd, 99 A.3d 226 (Del. 2014) (TABLE) .............................................................. 40, 43 Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. L.L.C. v. Moonmouth Co. S.A., 2015 WL 5278913 (Del. Ch. Sept. 10, 2015) ..................................................... 40 Chi. Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. LLC, 166 A.3d 912 (Del. 2017) ................................................................................... 19 Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 A.3d 806 (Del. 2016) ................................................................................... 41 Cypress Assocs., LLC v. Sunnyside Cogeneration Assocs. Project, 2007 WL 148754 (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2007) ......................................................... 35 Data Centers, LLC v. 1743 Holdings LLC,, 2015 WL 9464503 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 20, 2015) ........................................... 36 -iii- RLF1 18762148v.1 In re Ebix, Inc. S’holder Litig., 2016 WL 208402 (Del. Ch. Jan. 15, 2016) ......................................................... 13 Fidanque v. Am. Maracaibo Co., 92 A.2d 311 (Del. Ch. 1952) .............................................................................. 26 Fortis Advisors LLC v. Dialog Semiconductor PLC, 2015 WL 401371 (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2015) ............................................. 34, 35, 36 Friedman v. Khosrowshahi, 2014 WL 3519188 (Del. Ch. July 16, 2014), aff’d, 2015 WL 1001009 (Del. Mar. 6, 2015) (ORDER) ............................................................. 32 Fujisawa Pharm. Co. v. Kapoor, 655 A.2d 307 (Del. 1995) ................................................................................... 43 Gerber v. Enter. Prods. Hldgs., LLC, 67 A.3d 400 (Del. 2013), overruled on other grounds by Winshall v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 76 A.3d 808 (Del. 2013) ................................................... 36 Great Hill Equity P’rs IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, 2014 WL 6703980 (Del. Ch. Nov. 26, 2014) ..................................................... 38 Ingres Corp. v. CA, Inc., 8 A.3d 1143 (Del. 2010) ..................................................................................... 44 Kuhn Constr., Inc. v. Diamond State Port Corp., 990 A.2d 393 (Del. 2010) ................................................................................... 24 Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings, L.L.C., 971 A.2d 872 (Del. Ch. 2009) ................................................................ 32, 34, 36 Markow v. Synageva Biopharma Corp., 2016 WL 1613419 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 3, 2016) ............................................. 36 McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Eng’g Co., 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970) ................................................................................... 44 Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120 (Del. 2010) ........................................................................... 24, 30 Norton v. K-Sea Transp. P’rs, L.P., 67 A.3d 354 (Del. 2013) ..................................................................................... 25 -iv- RLF1 18762148v.1 O’Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281 (Del. 2001) ................................................................................... 30 ONTI, Inc. v. Integra Bank, 751 A.2d 904 (Del. Ch. 1999) ............................................................................ 26 OSI Sys., Inc. v. Instrumentarium Corp., 892 A.2d 1086 (Del. Ch. 2006) .......................................................................... 22 Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chems. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192 (Del. 1992) ................................................................................. 29 Rosen v. Wind River Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1856460 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2009) ...................................................... 44 Rothschild Int’l Corp. v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 463 A.2d 642 (Del. Ch. 1983), aff’d, 474 A.2d 133 (Del. 1984) ....................... 26 Ryan v. Gifford, 918 A.2d 341 (Del. Ch. 2007) ............................................................................ 45 Salamone v. Gorman, 106 A.3d 354 (Del. 2014) ................................................................................... 23 Sanders v. Wang, 1999 WL 1044880 (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 1999) ....................................................... 21 Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, 533 A.2d 1235 (Del. Ch. 1987) .......................................................................... 42 Seidensticker v. Gasparilla Inn, Inc., 2007 WL 4054473 (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2007) ................................................. 28, 29 Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London v. Nat’l Installment Ins. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 4554453 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2007), aff’d, 962 A.2d 916 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) ......................................................................................... 42 Veloric v. J.G. Wentworth, Inc., 2014 WL 4639217 (Del. Ch. Sept. 18, 2014) ....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Negligence - Panacea Or Pandora's Box 1 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 3 Winter 1968 Comparative Negligence - Panacea or Pandora's Box 1 J. Marshall J. of Prac. & Proc. 270 (1968) Kevin T. Martin Richard J. Phelan John H. Scheid Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin T. Martin, Comparative Negligence - Panacea or Pandora's Box 1 J. Marshall J. of Prac. & Proc. 270 (1968) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol1/iss2/3 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTARY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE - PANACEA OR PANDORA'S BOX? By RICHARD J. PHELAN* KEVIN MARTINt JOHN SCHEID$ In Maki v. Frelk' the Illinois Appellate Court held that a complaint alleging "that at times relevant hereto if there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's decedent it was less than the negligence of the defendant, Calvin Frelk, when compared, ' 2 will withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, even though the complaint admits that the plain- tiff may have been guilty of a lesser degree of negligence which proximately contributed to his injuries. Prior to this decision, the complaint would have been dismissed. Considering the his- tory of the case, this decision may be a prelude to the Illinois Supreme Court's adoption of a comparative negligence system in Illinois.3 The Maki case was initially appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court which found no constitutional issues on direct appeal but transferred the case to the appellate court to consider "the ques- tion of whether, as a mzatter of justice and public policy, the rule should be changed.' ' 4 The appellate court, in reaching its decision, reviewed the arguments made by the proponents and opponents of comparative negligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Sweports, Ltd V. Abrams
    2021 IL App (1st) 200139-U FOURTH DIVISION June 30, 2021 No. 1-20-0139 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ SWEPORTS, LTD., UMF CORPORATION, and ) Appeal from the GEORGE CLARKE, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 18 L 5737 ) LEE ABRAMS, TINA WHITE, MICHAEL O’ROURKE, ) MICHAEL MOODY, O’ROURKE & MOODY, an Illinois ) Honorable law partnership, JOHN DORE, ANDREW CHENELLE, ) Thomas R. Mulroy, Jr., and NEAL WOLF, ) Judge Presiding. ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶ 1 Held: Affirming the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for abuse of process, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, prima facie tortious conduct, and conspiracy. ¶ 2 Plaintiffs Sweports Ltd. (Sweports), UMF Corporation (UMF), and George Clarke (Clarke) filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against defendants Lee Abrams (Abrams), Tina White (White), Michael O’Rourke (O’Rourke), Michael Moody (Moody), 1-20-0139 O’Rourke & Moody, an Illinois law partnership (O&M), John Dore (Dore), Andrew Chenelle (Chenelle),1 and Neal Wolf (Wolf). The complaint alleged, in part, that the defendants engaged in vexatious litigation for the purpose of forcing the liquidation of Sweports, obtaining control of UMF, and coercing Clarke out of control of the companies. The plaintiffs asserted claims for abuse of process (count I), tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (count II), prima facie tortious conduct (count III), and conspiracy (count IV).
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements and the Supreme Court Changes Citation Formats
    Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois | www.iadtc.org | 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly | Volume 21, Number 3 (21.3.32) Appellate Practice Corner By: Brad A. Elward Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria The First District Revisits Rule 304(a) Requirements and the Supreme Court Changes Citation Formats While decisions reporting on appellate issues seem to be rare, we have one for this issue. In Palmolive Tower Condominiums, LLC v. Simon, the appellate court dismissed a party’s appeal for want of a final and appealable order, specifically finding that the circuit court’s statement, “[t]his order is final and appealable,” was incomplete and, therefore, failed to confer appellate jurisdiction under Rule 304(a). Rule 304(a) says, in part: If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both. Such a finding may be made at the time of the entry of the judgment or thereafter on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party. … In the absence of such a finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook on Briefs and Oral Arguments
    HANDBOOK ON BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENTS by THE HON. ROBERT E. DAVISON and DAVID P. BERGSCHNEIDER ©2007 by the Office of the State Appellate Defender. All rights reserved. Updated 2020 by: Kerry Bryson & Shawn O’Toole, Deputy State Appellate Defenders State Appellate Defender Offices Administrative Office Third District Office 400 West Monroe - Suite 202 770 E. Etna Road Springfield, Illinois 62705 Ottawa, Illinois 61350 Phone: (217) 782-7203 Phone: (815) 434-5531 Fax: (217) 782-5385 Fax: (815) 434-2920 First District Office Fourth District Office 203 N. LaSalle, 24th Floor 400 West Monroe - Suite 303 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5240 Phone: (312) 814-5472 Phone: (217) 782-3654 Fax: (312) 814-1447 Fax: (217) 524-2472 Second District Office Fifth District Office One Douglas Avenue, 2nd Floor 909 Water Tower Circle Elgin, Illinois 60120 Mount Vernon, Illinois 62864 Phone: (847) 695-8822 Phone: (618) 244-3466 Fax: (847) 695-8959 Fax: (618) 244-8471 Juvenile Defender Resource Center 400 West Monroe, Suite 202 Springfield, Illinois 62704 Phone: (217) 558-4606 Email: [email protected] i INTRODUCTION The first edition of this Handbook was written in the early 1970's by Kenneth L. Gillis, who went on to become a Circuit Court Judge in Cook County. The Handbook was later expanded by Robert E. Davison, former First Assistant Appellate Defender and Circuit Court Judge in Christian County. Although the Handbook has been updated on several occasions, the contributions of Judges Gillis and Davison remain an essential part. The lawyers who use this Handbook are encouraged to offer suggestions for improving future editions.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 125124 in the SUPREME COURT of ILLINOIS
    125124 No. 125124 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS _____________________________________________________________________________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Appellate Court of ) Illinois, No. 1-11-0580. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) There on appeal from the Circuit Court -vs- ) of Cook County, Illinois , No. 93 CR ) 26477 (04). ) ANTONIO HOUSE, ) Honorable ) Kenneth J. Wadas, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding. ) _____________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEE CROSS-RELIEF REQUESTED JAMES E. CHADD State Appellate Defender DOUGLAS R. HOFF Deputy Defender LAUREN A. BAUSER Assistant Appellate Defender Office of the State Appellate Defender First Judicial District 203 N. LaSalle St., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-5472 [email protected] COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED E-FILED 12/11/2020 12:47 PM Carolyn Taft Grosboll SUPREME COURT CLERK SUBMITTED - 11462688 - Carol Chatman - 12/11/2020 12:47 PM 125124 TABLE OF CONTENTS AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Page Nature of the Case. 1 Issues Presented for Review. 1 Statement of Facts. 2 Argument. 12 I. As applied to Antonio House, a teenage accomplice, the mandatory natural life sentencing statute for multiple murders shocks the conscience and violates Illinois’ proportionate penalties clause. Consistent with the appellate court’s decision, remand for a new sentencing hearing is therefore appropriate . 12 People v. House, 2015 IL App (1st) 110580. passim 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii)(1993) . 12 Ill. Const., art I, § 11 . 12, 15 U.S. Const., amends. VIII . 16 People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932 . passim People v. Leon Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328 (2002). passim Roper v.
    [Show full text]
  • ADMINISTRATIVE and PROCEDURAL RULES of the ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT- FOURTH DISTRICT 201 West Monroe Street, Springfield, IL 62704 Revised 2021
    ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT- FOURTH DISTRICT 201 West Monroe Street, Springfield, IL 62704 Revised 2021 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 22(h) authorizes this comi to adopt rules of practice consistent with the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, the Uniform Administrative and Procedural Rules of the Illinois Appellate Courts, and the Illinois Compiled Statutes. 1. Filing and Form of Documents Filed in the Appellate Court Filers must electronically file all documents in civil cases, except documents exempted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule. Attorneys and self-represented litigants may not file documents through any alternative filing method, except in the event of emergency upon leave of Court or unless the Court has granted a waiver of eflling. A list of approved Electronic Filing Service Providers and additional associated information is located at www.efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm Attorneys and self-represented litigants may electronically file documents in criminal cases. If not filed electronically, all criminal filings must be forwarded to the Appellate Court Clerk's office either by personal delivery or by the United States Postal Service or similar courier to: Fomih District Appellate Court Clerk 201 West Monroe Street Springfield, Illinois 62704 Unless received after the due date, documents filed conventionally in criminal cases will be deemed filed upon receipt by the Appellate Court Clerk (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373). If received after the due date, the time of mailing shall be deemed the time of filing. Proof of mailing shall be as provided in Illinois Supreme Comi Rule 12. All documents filed with the Appellate Court must comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rules and must be signed by at least one attorney of record whose professional physical address, email address, and Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission number must be listed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mighty Cubs Strike out in Court, 8 Hastings Comm
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 8 | Number 2 Article 4 1-1-1985 Joy in Wrigleyville - The iM ghty Cubs Strike out in Court Steven J. Elie Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven J. Elie, Joy in Wrigleyville - The Mighty Cubs Strike out in Court, 8 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 289 (1985). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol8/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Joy in Wrigleyville? The Mighty Cubs Strike Out in Court Steven J. Elie* I Introduction On October 3, 1985, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its decision in The Chicago National League Ball Club v. Thompson,1 holding constitutional a state nighttime noise pol- lution amendment to the Environmental Protection Act and a 2 city ordinance prohibiting certain nighttime athletic contests. The statute and the ordinance have the practical effect of prohibiting the installation of lights and the playing of night baseball games at Wrigley Field in Chicago, Illinois.3 Though it was said that this case "will be of far greater interest to sports fans than to legal scholars,"' 4 the implications and possible fu- * Member, Third Year Class; B.A., State University of New York at Albany, 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Classification and Compensation Study
    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS COURTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 4/17/17 JOB CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS A. Summary Statement. The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC), on behalf of the Supreme Court of Illinois, is using a competitive selection process (referred to herein as the “Request for Proposals” or “RFP”) to select a Vendor to conduct a comprehensive job classification and compensation study for approximately 650 state-paid positions within the Illinois Judicial Branch of government. In addition, the selected Vendor will be required to assess the current salary structure and propose options and models to address any identified deficiencies taking into consideration market analyses, Judicial Branch requirements, and all applicable statutes, rules, and policies. The RFP response may serve as the basis for subsequent contract negotiations with the selected Vendor. B. Right to Cancel. The AOIC is not obligated to respond to any proposal submitted, nor is it legally bound in any manner by the submission of a proposal. The AOIC reserves the right to cancel or withdraw the RFP at any time if it is considered to be in the best interest of the AOIC. In the event the RFP is cancelled or withdrawn, the AOIC shall not incur any liability to any Vendor for any costs or expenses incurred in conjunction with the RFP. The AOIC also reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or parts of proposals, to waive any informalities therein, and to extend proposal due dates. II. OVERVIEW OF THE ILLINOIS JUDICIAL BRANCH The Illinois Judicial Branch is a unified court system responsible for applying the Constitution and law of Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • NAME: Where Do You Live? Appeal to the Illinois "Home" Appellate District
    WHERE DO YOU LIVE? APPEAL TO THE ILLINOIS “HOME” APPELLATE DISTRICT ∗ SOFIA M. ZNEIMER INTRODUCTION What would be the fate of a legislative bill that applies general criminal law on first-degree murder differently1 to Illinois residents, depending on whether they live in or around Chicago, Elgin, Ottawa, Springfield, or Mount Vernon?2 Most likely this bill would meet with howls of protest. While Illinois legislators would hardly think to pass a general law that would be applied differently on the sole basis of the geographical location of the deciding court, due to splits of opinions of the “Appellate Court(s)” of Illinois, that is exactly what is happening. A trial judge may be faced with two or more conflicting judicial interpretations of the same law coming from several Illinois appellate districts3 or from divisions within those districts.4 When faced with conflicting opinions, what law is the trial judge to apply? The Illinois Supreme Court has not clearly answered this question. Most recently, in Aleckson v. Village of Round Lake Park,5 the Illinois Supreme Court justices disagreed about how the judge should act in such a case. The majority opinion stated that, when conflicts arise among the appellate districts, a trial court is bound by the decisions of the Appellate Court of the district in which it sits.6 However, two of the justices specially concurred to disagree on precisely this point.7 Justices Harrison and Heiple stated that, because there is only one Illinois Appellate Court, a decision by any division of that court “is
    [Show full text]
  • Shannon Knight Partner
    Shannon Knight Partner Email: [email protected] Phone: (312) 606-8651 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/knightshannon/ I am a litigator focusing primarily in the areas of complex commercial, intellectual property, and technology-related litigation. I also counsel business and individual clients on contract negotiations, intellectual property management, and compliance and risk management strategies. During my ten years of practice, I have led and assisted colleagues in cases of varying sizes and complexity in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as well as before various alternative dispute resolution forums. Included among those are several matters I have handled in the Delaware Court of Chancery. I have significant and meaningful experience in representing clients through all phases of litigation, including from pre-litigation strategy and counseling through trial and appeal. I have drafted and argued dispositive motions, taken and defended depositions of fact and expert witnesses, and examined witnesses at trial and arbitration hearings. I have substantial experience in all areas of fact discovery, including issues related to electronic discovery. I also have meaningful appellate experience, having handled multiple appeals before the Illinois appellate court and having participated in an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. Education • J.D., cum laude, Chicago-Kent College of Law (Moot Court Honor Society) • B.A., Government & International Studies, Centre College IP Litigation • I second chaired an arbitration in which our client, a software licensee, sought an injunction forcing the software developer to comply with its obligations under a software development agreement to escrow developed source code. The Arbitrator ordered the software developer to execute a software escrow agreement and to deposit the source code into escrow.
    [Show full text]
  • ILLINOIS V. GREGORY FISHER
    Cite as: 540 U. S. ____ (2004) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ILLINOIS v. GREGORY FISHER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT No. 03–374. Decided February 23, 2004 PER CURIAM. The Appellate Court of Illinois held here that the Four- teenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause required the dismissal of criminal charges because the police, acting in good faith and according to normal police procedures, destroyed evidence that respondent had requested more than 10 years earlier in a discovery motion. Petitioner, the State of Illinois, contends that such a result is fore- closed by our decision in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U. S. 51 (1988). There we held that “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to pre- serve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Id., at 58. We agree with petitioner, grant the petition for certiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court. In September 1988, Chicago police arrested respondent in the course of a traffic stop during which police observed him furtively attempting to conceal a plastic bag contain- ing a white powdery substance. Four tests conducted by the Chicago Police Crime Lab and the Illinois State Police Crime Lab confirmed that the bag seized from respondent contained cocaine. Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine in the Circuit Court of Cook County in October 1988. He filed a motion for discovery eight days later requesting all physical evidence the State intended to use at trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Plain Error - Harmless Error
    WAIVER - PLAIN ERROR - HARMLESS ERROR .................................. 1 §54-1 Forfeiture ..................................................................................................... 1 §54-1(a) Generally ........................................................................................... 1 §54-1(b) Application of the Forfeiture Rule .............................................. 5 §54-1(b)(1) No Trial Objection; Delayed Trial Objection; Withdrawn Objection ........................................................................... 5 §54-1(b)(1)(a) Issue Forfeited ............................................................ 5 §54-1(b)(1)(b) Issue Not Forfeited .................................................... 8 §54-1(b)(2) Issue Raised in a Pretrial Motion in Limine ................ 12 §54-1(b)(3) Issue Not Raised in a Post-Trial Motion; Post-Trial Motion Untimely ................................................................................. 13 §54-1(b)(3)(a) Issue Forfeited .......................................................... 13 §54-1(b)(3)(b) Issue Not Forfeited .................................................. 16 §54-1(b)(4) Issue Not Raised in the Trial Court; Issue Raised for the First Time on Direct Appeal; Issue Not Subject to Forfeiture ............................................................................................. 19 §54-1(b)(4)(a) Issue Forfeited .......................................................... 19 §54-1(b)(4)(b) Issue Not Forfeited .................................................
    [Show full text]