Four questions certified in ‘right of conscience’ case

Trial Notebook

By Steven P. Garmisa

Hoey & Farina

Posted May 1, 2020 10:17 AM

Requesting guidance from the Illinois Appellate Court after Sandra Rojas, a former employee of the Winnebago County health department, sued the county and two of its officials for allegedly violating her rights under two Illinois laws — the Health Care Right of Conscience Act (745 ILCS 70/1) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (775 ILCS 35/1) — and the defendants countered by arguing for application of the “framework” federal law provides for employment discrimination cases under Title VII 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!

Defendant challenges ‘judicial legislation’ in suit over insider trading

Accused of insider trading, Michael Shvartsman argued this offense is “criminal law made by judges” that violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution and the non-delegation doctrine.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Court assesses offsets against employee’s underinsured claim

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, construing Illinois law, recently held that an employee injured in an automobile accident was entitled to recover underinsured coverage from his employer’s automobile liability policy, subject to certain reductions.
By Don R. Sampen
Iowa Supreme Court blocks testimony about business records

In a case where prosecutors relied on the hearsay rule’s business-records exception to justify testimony about documents that weren’t admitted into evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court, citing decisions from across the country, reversed because “the rules of evidence create a ‘business records exception’ to the rule against hearsay and not a ‘testimony about business records exception.’”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Arizona high court rolls back clock to 1864 in abortion case

The Comstock Act of 1873 was referenced in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the mifepristone case recently heard, and may play a factor in at least some of the justices’ decisions. Turns out, Arizona told a certain justice, we know you like beer, hold this beer.
By Daniel A. Cotter
Aggregation supports corporate liability in case against Walmart

Count 2 of a civil complaint that accused Walmart of violating the Controlled Substances Act — by “knowingly” filling “ineffective” prescriptions from June 2013 to November 2017 — relied on mashup that combined the conduct of innocent pharmacists with the allegedly culpable knowledge of Walmart’s CSA “compliance team.”
By Steven P. Garmisa
6th Circuit mulls over mileage reimbursement for delivery drivers

In two cases consolidated for appeal about the correct reimbursement rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act for pizza delivery drivers who use their own vehicles, one district judge agreed with the drivers — ruling they are entitled to the standard rate of $0.54 per mile set by the Internal Revenue Service for business deductions in 2018.
By Steven P. Garmisa
PLA on Dramshop Act time limit among latest high court denied

Building on last week’s column on rulings on petitions for leave to appeal from the Illinois Supreme Court on March 27, this week we review more of the numerous and important denials.
By Patrick Eckler
2nd Circuit splits on ‘bad faith’ in eminent domain case

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split on the validity of a complaint that alleged a New York town’s taking of Ben and Hank Brinkmann’s real estate for an “unimproved park” — i.e., an empty field — was a pretext that violated the 5th Amendment’s takings clause, because the municipality’s “real motive” was to block them from using the property for a big-box hardware store with an 80-car parking lot.
By Steven P. Garmisa