Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

Almon Heastie was intoxicated, and in need of medical attention. Paramedics brought him to a hospital emergency room. Because he was yelling and abusive, Almon was placed on a cart and in restraints. For lack of space at the hospital, Almon was wheeled into the cast room, where he was left alone.

A fire broke out in the cast room, and Almon suffered severe injuries. He sued the hospital, one of the security guards, and a number of emergency room staffers. A jury returned a verdict for defendants, so Almon appealed. The appellate court (1) ruled that it was proper to preclude Almon’s evidence that the hospital deviated from a standard of care by not searching him for contraband; but (2) reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court improperly dismissed Almon’s res ipsa loquitor cause of action. Defendants then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which agreed that plaintiff should have been allowed to put on a res ipsa case.

Almon also raised an argument in the Supreme Court. He disputed the appellate court’s ruling that affirmed preclusion of the standard of care evidence. However, Almon did not file a petition for leave to appeal that part of the appellate court’s ruling.

No matter. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Almon’s appeal still was proper. “Although plaintiff did not file a separate petition for leave to appeal, none was required. Plaintiff is entitled to raise the additional issue under [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 318(a), which provides that in all appeals ‘any appellee, respondent, or coparty may seek and obtain any relief warranted by the record on appeal without having filed a separate petition for leave to appeal or notice of cross-appeal or separate appeal.’ … This court has invoked Rule 318(a) in finding that allowance of one party's petition for leave to appeal brings before this court the other party's requests for cross-relief.”

Be careful here: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 318 applies only to appeals from the appellate court to the Supreme Court. It does not apply to appeals from the circuit court to the court of appeals.

The whole opinion, Heastie v. Roberts, No. 102428 (11/1/07), is available by clicking here.

Pacific Insurance Co. defended an appeal of partial summary judgment. Pacific, as appellee, raised three gripes with the judgment. But Pacific did not file a cross-appeal. Pacific argued that the 7th Circuit could consider the arguments on the theory that the appellate court can affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. The appellate court refused to consider Pacific’s positions because ruling in Pacific’s favor would have enlarged its rights under the judgment entered by the trial court. To accomplish that, Pacific was required to have filed a cross-appeal.

Get the whole case, Illinois School District Agency v. Pacific Insurance Co., No. 04-4147, 05-1271 (12/5/06), by clicking here.

This three-way dispute involved the mortgagee, the mortgagor, and the high bidder on the foreclosed property. The mortgagor defaulted, and the subject property was foreclosed and sold. The trial court denied a motion by the high bidder to confirm a judicial sale, but did order the mortgagor to pay the high bidder’s attorney fees.

The high bidder appealed the denial of its motion to confirm. The mortgagor did not cross-appeal the fee award, but did dispute it in its response brief. The First District Illinois Appellate Court refused to hear the argument over the fee award because a cross-appeal had not been filed. The court explained:

We also find it important to note plaintiff's [mortgagor] contention that the circuit court erred in awarding interest and attorneys' fees to intervenor [high bidder] at plaintiff's expense. Plaintiff raised this contention in its response brief but it did not cross-appeal the judgment of the circuit court ordering it to pay these costs to intervenor. Findings of the trial court adverse to the appellee do not require the appellee's cross-appeal if the judgment of the trial court was not at least in part against the appellee . . . However, findings adverse to the appellee require a cross-appeal if the judgment was in part against the appellee . . . Here, the circuit court granted plaintiff's motion to vacate the sale and dismiss the case with prejudice but it also assessed specified costs against plaintiff based on equitable principles. The circuit court's judgment was in part against plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff was required to file a cross-appeal to argue this issue on appeal . . . We, therefore, decline to address plaintiff's argument relative to the circuit court's judgment that was adverse to plaintiff.