2012 IL App (2d) 111151
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Peggy Lee Hall sued Naper Gold Hospitality LLC and K.M. Enterprises, Inc. for injuries from a fall on ice in Naper’s parking lot.
- Plaintiff alleged KM, the contracted snowplow, negligently removed snow and ice.
- Plaintiff testified she did not see the ice before the fall and could not identify its nature or source.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the ice was a natural accumulation; plaintiff sought to present facts from discovery.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Naper and KM; plaintiff moved to reconsider after incomplete discovery.
- On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal due to egregious violations of supreme court and local rules by plaintiff’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the summary judgment hearing premature before discovery was complete? | Hall argues discovery was incomplete and material facts unresolved. | Naper (and KM) contend summary judgment proper because no genuine issue exists. | Issue forfeited; brief violations tainted appeal. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ice was natural or unnatural? | Hall asserts facts show possible artificial accumulation by plowing. | Naper/K.M. contend record shows no basis for an unresolved issue on natural vs. unnatural ice. | Issue forfeited; merits not reached due to briefing violations. |
| Is the appeal subject to dismissal for counsel’s Rule 341 violations? | Hall maintains procedural issues are substantive no dismissal. | Naper/K.M. rely on appellate-rule violations supporting dismissal. | Appeal dismissed for Rule 341 violations and noncompliant briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Niewold v. Fry, 306 Ill. App. 3d 735 (1999) (jurisdictional statements in briefs critical)
- Burmac Metal Finishing Co. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 356 Ill. App. 3d 471 (2005) (briefs must comply with rules; noncompliance prejudices review)
- Zadrozny v. City Colleges of Chicago, 220 Ill. App. 3d 290 (1991) (burden on presenting clear arguments with proper references)
- Tannenbaum v. Lincoln National Bank, 143 Ill. App. 3d 572 (1986) (consequences for noncompliant briefing)
- People v. Sprind, 403 Ill. App. 3d 772 (2010) (forfeiture for failure to cite authorities)
- Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 401 Ill. App. 3d 868 (2010) (conclusive arguments require proper record citations)
- In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (2005) (discipline for noncompliance with briefing rules)
- Kerger v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 502, 295 Ill. App. 3d 272 (1997) (briefs must conform to specified format)
- In re Estate of Parker, 2011 IL App (1st) 102871 (2011) (docket management and briefing standards emphasized)
- Revolution Portfolio, LLC v. Beale, 332 Ill. App. 3d 595 (2002) (appellate review guided by proper documentation)