Court costs, fines, fees: New approach needed now

Letter to the Editor

By Steven E. Art, Matthew McClellan Daniels, Erika M. Washington and Malcolm C. Rich

Posted August 19, 2016 3:02 PM

The Collaboration for Justice is the joint social justice effort of Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. Members of this organization co-authored this letter to the editor.Court fines, fees and costs have a harmful impact on individuals, communities and our justice system. Recently, the Collaboration for Justice — the joint social justice effort of Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and the Chicago Council of Lawyers — released a report detailing the impact and legality of …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

Nonprofit proposes safe injection site for opioid abusers, claims sacred right

Threatened with criminal prosecution if it opens up a “safe injection site” for people struggling with opioid abuse, a nonprofit Pennsylvania corporation claimed protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment.
By Steven P. Garmisa
CTA defeats ask for 9 figures in catastrophic injury case

Attention-grabbing headlines of so-called nuclear verdicts are everywhere. There is obvious benefit to the individual plaintiffs’ attorney who obtains such a verdict to publicize it. But there is also benefit to the plaintiffs’ bar as a whole as to the value of similar cases that can be used to extract hefty settlements from defendants.
By Patrick Eckler
Courts split on overtime ‘gap time’ claims

There’s a 1-1 tie in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal on the validity of “overtime gap time claims” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Court mulls over timing for stock option damages

Gautam Shah persuaded a California jury that Skillz Inc. falsely claimed it had cause to terminate his employment in 2018 and then used this pretext to block him from exercising stock options worth more than $11.5 million when the company went public in 2020.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Further analysis ordered in case involving cash-out merger

In a case involving a cash-out merger that was governed by Delaware’s “entire fairness” standard, the Illinois Appellate Court instructed a trial judge to consider the equitable remedy of “rescissory damages” as an alternative to compensatory damages.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Does Constitution come into play in Oregon homelessness appeal?

Homelessness in many U.S. cities has become a major issue. In an Oregon city, the municipality addressed the issue by an ordinance that fined the homeless for using blankets, pillows or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping within city limits. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the matter.
By Daniel A. Cotter
Defendants attack assignment as champertous

When one of the plaintiffs in an antitrust case against turkey processors assigned its claim to a third party, the defendants argued the transfer was invalid as “champertous” under Illinois law. But U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District decided “federal common law” should provide the answer.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Another judge rejects 7th Circuit case on standing

Seven weeks after a district judge in New York rejected the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s approach to standing for breach-of-contract claims under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a judge in the District of Columbia added his thoughts on why Dinerstein v. Google, 73 F.4th 502 (7th Cir. 2023), is wrong.
By Steven P. Garmisa