Angela Brown filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Anand Vora and Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, voluntarily dismissed it, and refiled in July 2024. Neither Brown nor her attorney appeared at a September 2024 case management conference because an email forwarding failure — caused when forwarding from counsel's old address stopped in July 2024 without his knowledge — prevented him from receiving the court notice. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Upon discovering the dismissal in late October 2024, counsel filed a section 2-1401 petition approximately 45 days later. The trial court granted the petition, reinstated the case, and denied defendants' motion to reconsider. Defendants appealed.

The appellate court affirmed on all issues. On due diligence, the court held that counsel's reasonable belief that email forwarding remained active, combined with his active efforts to secure a section 2-622 expert report and his prompt filing upon discovering the dismissal, did not constitute negligence or indifference. On the meritorious claim requirement, the court found Brown's allegations of a failed ankle surgery resulting in pain, infection, and hardware removal surgery were sufficient. The court further held that Brown's failure to attach a section 2-622 healthcare professional's report did not defeat her petition, because under the pre-1995 version of section 2-622(a)(2) — confirmed controlling by the Illinois Supreme Court in O'Casek — a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses and refiles may still invoke the 90-day extension.

This decision is significant for medical malpractice practitioners and civil litigators because it confirms that inadvertent technology failures can constitute excusable mistakes under section 2-1401, clarifies that O'Casek controls section 2-622(a)(2) extension eligibility after voluntary dismissal and refiling, and reinforces that section 2-1401 relief is grounded in equity and justice.

Matthew Frankenfeld sued Thrive Physical Therapy Partners and related entities seeking declaratory judgment and specific performance after defendants refused to countersign an Incentive Award Agreement that would have granted him 223,000 Class C equity units. Frankenfeld had signed the agreement, relocated, assumed executive responsibilities, and made financial contributions in connection with his employment. The Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed his complaint under section 2-615, finding no enforceable contract existed because defendants never executed the Incentive Agreement. The First District affirmed.

The central issue on appeal was whether defendants' failure to countersign the Incentive Agreement defeated contract formation. The court held that mutual execution was a condition precedent to formation, pointing to multiple provisions within the agreement itself — including language conditioning issuance of units on execution of a Joinder, a counterparts clause requiring exchange of executed copies, and closing signature language presupposing mutual execution. The court also rejected Frankenfeld's argument that his performance and investment demonstrated an enforceable agreement, finding that his conduct related to a separately executed offer letter, not the Incentive Agreement.

The court further held that defendants did not waive the signature requirement through their conduct, that no breach could arise from an agreement never formed, and that several equitable arguments — including promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment — were forfeited for failure to raise them below. Attorneys drafting or litigating equity incentive agreements should ensure that signature requirements and conditions precedent are clearly identified and satisfied before clients act in reliance on unsigned documents.

This case arose from a 2010 emergency department visit at Decatur Memorial Hospital (DMH). Plaintiffs sued DMH under an apparent agency theory, alleging DMH was vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Garcia, an independent contractor. After the Fifth District reversed an initial summary judgment and remanded for trial, plaintiffs entered into a 2022 Covenant Not to Execute and Stipulated Judgment with Dr. Garcia and his employer, DEMS, accepting $2 million against a stipulated $10 million judgment while expressly reserving all claims against DMH. DMH moved for summary judgment on remand, arguing the settlement extinguished its vicarious liability. The trial court agreed, and plaintiffs appealed.

The central issues were whether the Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital rule — that any settlement with an agent extinguishes the principal's vicarious liability — applied despite the express reservation of claims, and whether that rule should be limited where the principal's indemnity rights against the agent are time-barred. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Gilbert controls without exception. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Gilbert was intended solely to remedy illusory settlements and therefore should not apply when the principal cannot seek indemnity from the agent.

For practicing attorneys, this decision is a critical reminder that in Illinois apparent agency cases, settling with the agent — regardless of reservation-of-rights language — will extinguish the principal's vicarious liability as a matter of law. Plaintiffs' counsel must carefully sequence and structure settlements to avoid inadvertently releasing the principal. A notable dissent argued the Gilbert rule should not apply where the principal's indemnity rights are time-barred.

Michael Gum was found to be a sexually violent person following a bench trial in Tazewell County. Immediately after making that finding, the trial court entered a dispositional order committing Gum to institutional care in a secure facility without convening a separate dispositional hearing. Gum appealed, arguing the court violated the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act by failing to hold a dispositional hearing before entering the commitment order.

The Fourth District vacated the commitment order and remanded for a dispositional hearing, holding that the record compelled the conclusion that no dispositional hearing — let alone a meaningful one — was ever held, in clear violation of section 40(b)(1) of the Act. The court applied de novo review, reasoning that whether the trial court complied with the Act's mandatory hearing requirement is a question of law, not a matter of discretion. Relying on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in In re Commitment of Fields, the court rejected any harmless-error approach and held that vacatur and remand is the proper remedy. The court also held that Fields, not the First District's pre-Fields decision in Butler, controls.

Practically, this decision confirms that a trial court has no discretion to bypass the dispositional hearing requirement under the SVP Act, and that a respondent's failure to affirmatively request a hearing or announce witnesses does not waive the error — because one cannot move to continue a hearing that was never convened.

First United Methodist Church received a gifted single-family residence ('Charis Place') and used it to house families in need at below-market rent as part of its ROCHouse Ministry. The Church sought a property tax exemption for 2021 under both the religious purpose exemption (35 ILCS 200/15-40) and the charitable purpose exemption (35 ILCS 200/15-65). The Department of Revenue denied the application, an ALJ upheld the denial, and the Director adopted that recommendation. On administrative review, the circuit court reversed and granted the charitable exemption without addressing the religious exemption. The Department appealed.

The Fourth District first confirmed appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Church presented a single claim — entitlement to a 2021 property tax exemption — and received all possible relief when the circuit court ruled the property exempt. Advancing alternative statutory bases does not create multiple claims requiring a Rule 304(a) finding. On the merits, the court applied the clear error standard and balanced the six Korzen factors, reversing the Director's denial as clearly erroneous. Notably, the court held that 'indefinite number of persons' does not mean unlimited beneficiaries — a charity need only serve all who need and apply within its physical capacity. The court also rejected the Director's characterization of lease terms as restrictive obstacles, taking judicial notice that a crime-free housing addendum was mandated by local ordinance. The religious exemption was not addressed as unnecessary to the disposition.

This decision is significant for attorneys advising churches and nonprofits on Illinois property tax exemptions, clarifying that small-scale charitable housing programs can qualify under section 15-65 even when serving one household at a time.

Dachs, an elementary school, filed suit against Sheri Culver and her company, Culvers Transportation, Inc. (CTI), alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a Consumer Fraud Act violation. Neither defendant appeared, and the circuit court entered a default order on May 8, 2025. Culver and CTI moved to vacate under section 2-1401, but the circuit court dismissed their amended motion, finding admitted service, no meritorious defense alleged, and no diligence shown. Culver appealed individually; CTI did not.

On appeal, Culver raised two arguments: that the default was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because she was never personally served in her individual capacity, and that her motor vehicle accident constituted excusable circumstances warranting vacatur. The appellate court rejected both. On the jurisdiction issue, the court held that Culver's first affidavit — in which she admitted personal service on January 24, 2025 — constituted a binding judicial admission that conclusively established personal jurisdiction. Her later affidavit contradicting that admission was ineffective as a matter of law. On the section 2-1401 issue, the court held that Culver forfeited her challenge by failing to contest the circuit court's finding that she did not allege a meritorious defense, a mandatory element of a fact-based petition.

For practicing attorneys, this case underscores two critical points: affidavits filed in support of motions to vacate can create binding judicial admissions that permanently foreclose jurisdictional arguments, and a section 2-1401 petitioner who fails to address all three required elements on appeal risks forfeiture of the entire claim, regardless of the strength of any individual argument raised.

Jeffrey Wagner, the named insured under a long-term disability policy issued by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking an increased Principal Sum Amount under an Automatic Benefit Increase Endorsement. After a bench trial on documentary evidence, the trial court entered judgment for Wagner, awarding $1,749,200 in additional Principal Sum Amount plus $474,871.86 in prejudgment interest at 9% per annum under sections 357.9 and 357.9a of the Illinois Insurance Code, for a total judgment exceeding $2.2 million. Underwriters appealed.

The appellate court affirmed that the conditions of the endorsement were satisfied, finding that uncontradicted evidence — including an email and deposition testimony from Ann Brennan — established that Wagner's earned income increased from $1,330,276 to $1,350,000 in 2016 and that Underwriters received and agreed to that documentation before Wagner went on claim. However, the court reversed the damages calculation, holding that the endorsement's silence on how to compute the increased Principal Sum Amount constituted a missing contractual term rather than an ambiguity. Applying the agreed-upon formula to the $19,724 income increase yielded the only reasonable result: an additional $166,608. The court also affirmed the prejudgment interest award, finding that Underwriters forfeited its surplus line exemption argument by raising it for the first time in a post-trial objection to the proposed final order.

For practicing attorneys, this decision clarifies that silence in an insurance endorsement on a calculation method will be treated as a missing term to be supplied by logical deduction from agreed terms — not as an ambiguity triggering the contra proferentem rule. It also underscores that exemption arguments under the Insurance Code must be raised during trial proceedings or they are forfeited.

On December 12, 2020, Derry Berrigan's dog Ella attacked and severely injured another dog in Grant Park. The City of Chicago Department of Animal Care and Control (CACC) cited Berrigan for failure to restrain her animal and declared Ella a 'dangerous animal.' Following an administrative hearing, an ALJ found Berrigan liable, imposed a $500 fine, ordered $1,645.18 in restitution, and upheld the dangerous animal designation. On administrative review, the circuit court vacated the restitution award and reversed the dangerous animal determination, finding the investigation insufficiently thorough and the facts inadequate to support liability. CACC appealed.

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed on all contested issues. First, the court held that the circuit court improperly vacated the restitution award—an action expressly authorized by the ordinance—by substituting its own factual findings for the ALJ's credibility determinations regarding an alleged oral settlement agreement. Even if the award were unreasonable, outright vacatur was improper; remand to the agency was required. Second, applying de novo review, the court held that 'provocation' under Chicago Municipal Code section 7-12-020 is limited by its plain language to human conduct, making animal-on-animal provocation legally irrelevant to a dangerous animal determination. Third, the court held that Berrigan's totality-of-the-circumstances argument was forfeited because she failed to raise it before the ALJ.

This decision is significant for attorneys handling municipal administrative proceedings: it reinforces strict issue preservation requirements, confirms that courts may not engraft exceptions onto unambiguous ordinance language, and clarifies that circuit courts reviewing administrative sanctions must remand rather than independently resolve unaddressed factual questions.

This case arose from a $3.4 million wrongful death and survival settlement following the death of nine-day-old De'Aryiah Cook. LaTasha Cook, as administrator, filed a petition to allocate settlement proceeds and determine dependency among five heirs: LaTasha, the child's father DeAngelo Statam Sr., and DeAngelo Sr.'s three children. The circuit court held a full evidentiary hearing on March 18, 2024, despite DeAngelo Sr.'s counsel having been retained only the prior Friday and receiving the petition only the prior Sunday, with no appearance yet on file. The court denied counsel's request to enter an appearance and file a memorandum, and later refused to allow DeAngelo Sr. to testify again at the June 17, 2024 rehearing, ultimately allocating 87% of wrongful death proceeds to LaTasha and only 10% to DeAngelo Sr.

The appellate court held that the circuit court abused its discretion by requiring DeAngelo Sr. to proceed under those circumstances and then compounding the error by refusing corrective testimony on June 17. The court rejected LaTasha's arguments that the absence of a March 18 transcript was fatal under Foutch v. O'Bryant, finding the undisputed timeline itself sufficient to establish the abuse, and rejected a waiver argument based on failure to make an offer of proof, citing Dillon v. Evanston Hospital.

The court vacated the June 17 order and remanded for a new comprehensive hearing. It declined to address the substantive allocation and dependency findings or the GAL issue, but expressly noted on remand that circuit courts have an independent duty to protect minor children's interests regardless of whether appointment of a GAL is requested. Attorneys handling wrongful death settlement allocation proceedings should ensure adequate notice and preparation time for all parties and consider proactively raising GAL appointment for minor heirs.

A.C. was born January 25, 2023, placed in protective custody five days later, and adjudged neglected and abused. After a dispositional order placed A.C. with the DCFS guardianship administrator, the State filed a supplemental petition to terminate the biological mother Brianna's parental rights. Following a termination hearing, the Circuit Court of Cook County found Brianna unfit, terminated her parental rights, and appointed DCFS as guardian with authority to consent to adoption. Brianna appealed, challenging the unfitness finding, the admission of a certified psychological evaluation, the best interest determination, and the constitutionality of choosing termination over guardianship under the KIND Act.

The First District affirmed on all grounds. On unfitness, the court found ample evidence that Brianna failed to make reasonable progress during the relevant statutory periods, including three unsuccessful discharges from individual therapy, attendance at only 30–40% of supervised visits, and failure to complete required service components. On evidentiary grounds, the court held that certified agency records prepared to assess parenting capacity for family preservation purposes are not created 'in anticipation of litigation' and are admissible under section 2-18(4)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act. Any error was harmless given the trial court's non-reliance on those records.

On the KIND Act due process argument, the court held that Public Act 103-1061 places termination and guardianship on equal footing rather than expressing a preference for guardianship, rejecting Brianna's least-restrictive-means argument. The best interest finding was affirmed given A.C.'s lifelong placement with foster parents to whom she was strongly bonded and who were committed to maintaining her biological family connections.

Omega Demolition Corp. entered into a subcontract with Judlau Contracting, Inc. for demolition work, requiring Omega to procure a CG0001 commercial general liability policy. Omega obtained a James River policy that included an endorsement broadening the standard employee bodily injury exclusion from employees of 'the' insured to employees of 'any' insured — effectively eliminating coverage for additional insureds like Judlau. After a worker was injured and Judlau incurred defense costs in the resulting Santoyo lawsuit, Judlau terminated the subcontract and refused to pay Omega for three months of completed work. Omega sued for breach of contract, and the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts. Omega appealed.

The First District affirmed on all issues. The court held that Omega's breach occurred when the deficient policy was procured — before work commenced and before any alleged breach by Judlau — relying on the principle that a breach of contract accrues at the time of breach, not when damages are sustained. The court rejected Omega's novel theory that a nonmaterial breach can later be 'upgraded' to material, finding no supporting authority. The court also found no waiver by Judlau, emphasizing the subcontract's express no-waiver clause and Omega's failure to demonstrate reliance. Finally, Omega's partial breach doctrine argument was forfeited for being raised for the first time in its appellate reply brief.

This decision is significant for construction attorneys advising subcontractors on insurance procurement obligations. It confirms that endorsements modifying standard CG0001 coverage can constitute a material breach at the time of policy issuance, and that contractual no-waiver clauses will be enforced even when the general contractor permits work to begin without objecting to insurance deficiencies.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC obtained a default judgment of $10,432.50 against James Bernard on an account stated claim after Bernard's attorney failed to file an answer. Bernard, proceeding pro se after his attorney withdrew, filed a section 2-1401 petition to vacate the default judgment, arguing attorney negligence and Cavalry's alleged lack of standing. The circuit court dismissed the petition, denied Bernard's motion to reconsider, and separately denied his motion to set a hearing on a bystander's report. Bernard appealed both rulings.

The appellate court affirmed on all grounds. On the bystander's report issue, the court held it lacked jurisdiction because Bernard's notice of appeal identified only the dismissal of the section 2-1401 petition and did not specify the later order denying the bystander's report motion. That order was not a step in the procedural progression leading to the specified judgment, and Bernard never amended or filed a new notice of appeal. On the section 2-1401 petition, the court held Bernard failed to demonstrate due diligence in presenting his defense — a required element. In civil cases, litigants are generally bound by counsel's negligence, and Bernard's own timeline showed he did not follow up with his attorney for six months after the default judgment and discovered it only eight months later, with no extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay.

For practicing attorneys, this case reinforces that clients cannot escape default judgments simply by blaming counsel's inattention absent extraordinary circumstances, and that notices of appeal must precisely identify every order sought to be reviewed or appellate jurisdiction will be lost.

The Village of Downers Grove filed a petition for equitable relief in Du Page County Circuit Court seeking demolition and a declaration of abandonment of property at 6610 Dunham Road, along with issuance of a judicial deed under section 11-31-1(d) of the Illinois Municipal Code. After the circuit court declared the property abandoned in January 2025 and initially denied the Village's petition for a judicial deed without prejudice, the Village filed an amended petition supported by an attorney affidavit attesting to certified mail notice sent to all parties with a record interest. The circuit court granted the amended petition on May 13, 2025, and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC appealed, arguing the Village failed to prove actual delivery or receipt of notice.

The Third District Appellate Court affirmed, applying de novo review to the statutory construction question. The court held that the plain language of section 11-31-1(d) requires only that notice be 'sent' by certified or registered mail — it imposes no proof-of-receipt condition. The court reinforced this reading through the canon that the legislature's omission of a return-receipt requirement at the judicial deed stage — present elsewhere in the statute — was intentional. The court also applied the Foutch presumption, noting the absence of a transcript required it to presume the circuit court acted in conformity with the law.

For practitioners, this decision clarifies that municipalities need not demonstrate actual delivery of notice to obtain a judicial deed under section 11-31-1(d). An attorney affidavit confirming certified mail dispatch is sufficient, and a lienholder's failure to contest actual receipt further undermines any notice-based challenge.

Andrew R. Vrchota died and his sister-in-law was appointed supervised executor. The executor petitioned to declare Kristina Vrchota Ryterski—Vrchota's natural daughter, who had been adopted by Dennis Ryterski in 1973—as the sole heir. Decedent's sister, Joyce Morgan, opposed the petition, arguing that Kristina's adoption extinguished her right to inherit from her natural father. The Du Page County circuit court agreed with Morgan, found Kristina was not an heir, and declared Morgan the heir. Kristina appealed.

The central issue was whether section 2-4(d)(1) of the Probate Act of 1975 permitted Kristina to inherit from her natural father. That provision bars an adopted child from inheriting from a natural parent unless, among other conditions, the child was adopted by a descendant or spouse of a descendant of the child's great-grandparent. The appellate court held, applying de novo review, that because Kristina's natural mother is a descendant of Kristina's great-grandparents, Dennis Ryterski's status as the natural mother's husband at the time of adoption—if proven—would satisfy the statutory exception. Relying on In re Estate of Snodgrass, the court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Dennis and Kristina's mother were married at the time of adoption. The court declined to reach Kristina's due process argument and found her late-raised argument challenging whether adoption was ever established was forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7).

Probate attorneys should note that the stepparent adoption exception under section 2-4(d)(1) can preserve an adopted child's inheritance rights from a natural parent, but the marital status of the adoptive parent at the time of adoption is a critical factual predicate that must be established in the record.

In In re G.S., the Kane County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of respondent-mother Connie S. after adjudicating her minor daughter G.S. neglected and finding Connie dispositionally unfit. The State alleged five counts of unfitness; the trial court sustained all five. Connie, proceeding pro se on appeal, challenged both the unfitness finding and the best-interests determination. The appellate record was incomplete—transcripts of the dispositional hearing, multiple permanency hearings, and the unfitness hearing were all absent—and Connie's brief failed to comply with basic appellate rules, largely mirroring a co-respondent's brief rather than addressing her own fitness.

The Second District affirmed on both issues. On unfitness, the court focused on counts alleging failure to make reasonable progress during nine-month post-adjudication periods under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act. The record showed Connie attended only three counseling sessions and some parenting classes, was combative with service providers, refused to sign releases, was unsuccessfully discharged from parenting classes, and persistently blamed others for the proceedings. On best interests, the court found G.S. was deeply bonded to her foster family of nearly three years, who were actively managing her significant developmental and sensory needs through multiple weekly therapies and remained committed to adoption.

Practically, the case reinforces that proof of any single unfitness count suffices, that minimal service plan participation will not defeat an unfitness finding, and that the Foutch presumption applies in termination appeals when transcripts are missing. Courts may decline to strike a non-compliant pro se brief and instead reach the merits to provide finality for the child.

Bryan and Kari Dow separated in 2022 after four years of marriage. Kari relocated with their minor son to Florida in May 2022, before Bryan filed for dissolution in August 2022. Bryan filed an emergency motion to return the child to Illinois, which the trial court denied after finding section 609.2 of the MDMA inapplicable and crediting evidence that Bryan had consented to the move. Following a 2024 trial, the court entered an Allocation Judgment permitting the child to remain in Florida and ordered Bryan to pay $1,300 per month in child support, declining to count $6,000 per month Kari received from her father as income after finding those payments were bona fide loans. Bryan appealed both rulings.

The appellate court affirmed on both issues. On relocation, the court held that section 609.2 applies only to a parent who has been allocated parenting time, and because no dissolution proceeding had been filed and no parenting time had been allocated when Kari moved, the statute simply did not apply. The court rejected Bryan's policy argument that this outcome incentivizes pre-filing relocations, noting that parenting time remains a central issue in any dissolution action and that criminal child abduction statutes provide additional deterrence. On child support, the court held that whether a payment constitutes income depends on whether it is a bona fide loan requiring repayment — a factual question reviewed for manifest weight. Because Kari's unrebutted testimony established a genuine repayment obligation and Bryan failed to challenge that factual finding on appeal, the court declined to disturb it.

For family law practitioners, this decision clarifies that section 609.2's relocation restrictions have no pre-allocation application, underscoring the importance of promptly seeking emergency parenting time orders when a spouse relocates with a child before dissolution is filed. The case also provides a useful framework for litigating whether familial financial transfers constitute income for child support purposes, emphasizing that the bona fide nature of a loan is a fact-specific inquiry.

Plaintiffs, a group of trucking-related entities, sued Jurgita Aranauskas, a 25% shareholder and former director of Melck Holding Corp., for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged disclosure of confidential business information to a competitor. The trial court dismissed the second-amended complaint with prejudice, finding plaintiffs failed to plead how Jurgita's duties extended to Melck's subsidiaries and failed to identify what confidential information was disclosed and to whom. The trial court also awarded Jurgita $186,859.49 in attorney fees under section 8.75(c) of the Illinois Business Corporation Act and held Melck and its president in contempt for refusing to advance her defense costs.

The appellate court reversed the dismissal as to Melck itself, finding that neither ground for dismissal applied to the parent corporation. As a corporate officer of Melck, Jurgita owed it a fiduciary duty of loyalty, and the complaint sufficiently alleged she had access to confidential information including customer lists, financial data, and proprietary business information. Because the dismissal was reversed, the fee award premised on Jurgita's success under section 8.75(c) was vacated as premature. The court dismissed the contemnors' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a contempt order whose fines were automatically stricken upon filing a notice of appeal imposes no sanction and is therefore non-final and non-appealable under Rule 304(b)(5).

For practitioners, this case underscores the importance of pleading fiduciary duty claims with precision as to each corporate entity, the timing implications of fee petitions on appellate jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional limits of appealing contempt orders that carry self-executing fine-waiver provisions.

Rafaela Colaizzi filed an optometric malpractice suit in Cook County on behalf of her minor son Joshua, alleging vision loss and a corneal transplant resulting from negligent treatment by a For Eyes optometrist in Bloomingdale, DuPage County. Defendants For Eyes Optical Company and Luxottica of America moved to transfer venue to DuPage County on intrastate forum non conveniens grounds. The circuit court denied the motion, and defendants sought interlocutory review under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2).

The First District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. On the private interest factors, the court emphasized that Joshua's Cook County treating physicians were not strategically selected by his mother — a For Eyes optometrist in DuPage County had directed the family to Suburban Associates in Arlington Heights, Cook County. For Eyes identified no nonparty defense witnesses capable of testifying on causation or damages. The court also rejected arguments about travel time and mileage differences of approximately six miles and six minutes between courthouses as the 'battle over minutiae' cautioned against by the Illinois Supreme Court. On public interest factors, the court found both counties had genuine interests, and Cook County's court congestion data — showing an average verdict lapse time of 43.4 months versus DuPage County's 59.3 months — actually favored retaining the case in Cook County.

Practically, the decision reinforces that defendants bear a heavy burden to overcome a plaintiff's chosen forum, that new evidence or statistics cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal, and that minor geographic differences between adjoining counties will rarely justify transfer.

E.A. is an orphaned minor whose maternal grandparents and paternal aunt and uncle each petitioned for plenary guardianship in the Circuit Court of Cook County. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the grandparents' petition and appointed Uncle as sole guardian. The grandparents appealed, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court applied an improper legal standard by focusing on strained adult relationships rather than E.A.'s best interest.

The appellate court affirmed, applying the best interest factors from In re Estate of Suggs and emphasizing the circuit court's inherent plenary power — rooted in common law and equity — to appoint guardians of minors independent of any statute. The court rejected the grandparents' arguments that either the Juvenile Court Act's best interest factors or the Probate Act's revocation-of-letters factors should govern, finding both arguments forfeited and legally inapplicable. The court upheld the circuit court's reliance on the GAL's credible testimony regarding the grandparents' lack of behavioral boundaries, their failure to foster E.A.'s relationship with his only sibling, and the risk that E.A. — already having lost both parents — could suffer devastating loss if his nearly-70-years-older grandparents predeceased him.

For practitioners, this case clarifies that Illinois circuit courts are not bound by any statutory framework when adjudicating minor guardianship proceedings, and that the Suggs best interest factors govern. It also underscores that arguments not raised below and unsupported by cited authority will be forfeited on appeal.

In this medical negligence action arising from alleged failure to timely diagnose a subdural hemorrhage, plaintiff sought credentialing records for six providers at Advocate Sherman Hospital. After the trial court overruled Sherman Hospital's privilege objections and ordered production, Sherman Hospital produced over 2,000 pages with redactions and asserted the Medical Studies Act privilege over withheld materials. The trial court conducted an in camera review of those pages without affidavits from Sherman Hospital, ultimately overruling the privilege as to 14 specific pages. When Sherman Hospital refused to produce those pages, the trial court entered a non-friendly civil contempt order imposing escalating fines to facilitate interlocutory appeal.

The First District affirmed the underlying privilege ruling, holding that Sherman Hospital failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the 14 disputed pages were initiated, created, prepared, or generated by a peer-review committee. The court emphasized that merely showing documents served an integral function in the peer-review process is insufficient — the documents must actually originate from that process. Critically, the court clarified that submitting thousands of pages for in camera review without supporting affidavits is procedurally inadequate; a trial court may properly either demand affidavits or overrule the privilege claim for lack of substantiation.

The court vacated the contempt order and monetary penalty, reaffirming that a party seeking a contempt order in good faith to enable interlocutory appeal of a discovery ruling is not acting contemptuously, and the order should be vacated regardless of whether the underlying ruling is affirmed. Attorneys invoking the Medical Studies Act privilege should file detailed affidavits alongside any in camera submission to avoid waiving the privilege by inadequate substantiation.