Special interrogatory retains its important role in litigation

Civil Litigation

By Robert E. Senechalle Jr.

Robert E. Senechalle Jr. is a senior mediator and arbitrator at ADR Systems. He previously served as a judge for 18 years in the Circuit Court of Cook County and heard cases in its Law and Chancery divisions.

Posted November 14, 2023 11:15 AM

An adage that most lawyers know is, “If you don’t know the answer, do not ask the question.”There is a time at trial, however, when a lawyer must ask one or more questions, the answers to which neither the lawyer nor anyone involved in the case knows. Those questions, put to the jurors deciding the case, are special interrogatories.The special interrogatory poses a single, direct question on an ultimate issue of fact upon which the determination of the case depends. Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541, 556 (2002). The …

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!

Police not entitled to qualified immunity in class-of-one case

In a class-of-one equal protection case where Debra Brent alleged that two police officers repeatedly sided with her racist neighbors when she called for help — either because they were racist or because they were friends with the neighbors — a federal judge in Maryland concluded that the officers aren’t entitled to qualified immunity.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Judge rejects argument on federal tort in case over mailman pepper-spraying dog

In a negligence case under the Federal Tort Claim Act about a mail carrier accused of routinely pepper-spraying a dog that was behind a locked gate — inadvertently causing respiratory illness in two children who regularly played with the pup — the government’s arguments about trespass-to-chattel and transferred intent posed “several difficult questions” under the FTCA’s intentional tort exception.
By Steven P. Garmisa
250 years ago, Boston Tea Party signaled thirst for independence

On Dec. 16, 1773, Boston held the most famous tea party in history. Bostonians boarded the East India Tea Company’s cargo ships and threw 342 chests of tea into the harbor.
By Ann M. Lousin
Judge denounces attorneys’ discovery tactics in breach of contract case

Spanking the lawyers on both sides of a breach of contract case for childish bickering, a federal judge in Texas condemned tactics attorneys use to “evade, obfuscate, and obstruct the discovery process.”
By Steven P. Garmisa
7th Amendment and ‘chutzpah’: SCOTUS weighs SEC challenge

The Supreme Court heard two hours and 15 minutes of oral argument in an important Seventh Amendment case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy.
By Daniel A. Cotter
Tossing of Kilpatrick case unjust, should be remedied

I am so pleased to agree wholeheartedly with Pat Eckler’s column (“Rule 9(d)(2) should be amended following unfair, unjust outcome,” Nov. 30) about the injustice visited upon the plaintiff (and plaintiff’s lawyer) in Kilpatrick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2023 IL App (2d) 230088.
By Bruce R. Pfaff
Dispute didn’t require federal common law rule

Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s two-part test for determining whether a dispute calls for crafting a uniform federal common law rule that displaces state law, District Judge Virginia M. Kendall remanded a Cook County case that Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association removed to the Dirksen courthouse based on federal-question jurisdiction.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Judge blasts post office’s arguments for refusing to install wheelchair ramp

Joining the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in reinstating Shellie Ellison’s lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service for refusing to install a wheelchair ramp at the front of the Shelbyville, Indiana, post office, Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton chastised the government for presenting arguments that “would be laughed out of court” if offered by any other defendant.
By Steven P. Garmisa