McNally v. Morrison, 408 Ill. App. 3d 248

McNally, Mulroney, and Pierce sue Morrison and TASA in Cook County for breach of contract, consumer fraud, fraud, and professional negligence arising from Morrison’s role as an expert in a separate Illinois medical malpractice action against Dr. Zukowski.
Morrison, an Ohio-based surgeon, allegedly formed two overlapping arrangements: (i) an agreement via TASA to provide expert services; (ii) an oral contract with plaintiffs for Morrison to serve as an expert in the Illinois action.
Plaintiffs contend Morrison and/or TASA had minimum contacts with Illinois through the expert engagement and billing/referral activities within Illinois.
Morrison moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under 735 ILCS 5/2-619; the trial court granted the motion; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
The court concludes Morrison had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to be subject to personal jurisdiction and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Morrison	Morrison had an oral contract and substantial contacts via TASA with Illinois	Morrison had no Illinois contract or purposeful engagement; actions occurred in Ohio	Yes; sufficient minimum contacts; remand for further proceedings

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts test; reasonable foreseeability of suit in forum state)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts for due process)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (effects-based forum considerations; reasonableness factors)
Keller v. Henderson, 359 Ill.App.3d 605 (2005) (treats due process with respect to jurisdiction and affidavits in prima facie showing)
Knaus v. Guidry, 389 Ill.App.3d 804 (2009) (recognizes minimum contacts analysis for cross-state claims)