Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Asking for the haystack after we’ve already found the needle”
Next Post: IHSA doctor “misspoke or was misconstrued”
Posted in:
* Daily Chronicle…
A DeKalb County judge has again denied an appeal by local restaurant and bar owners to end the prohibition on indoor dining, citing Governor JB Pritzker’s authority during a public health crisis.
DeKalb County Circuit Court Judge Bradley Waller ruled Friday on a second attempt by 10 local businesses owners to stay the governor’s order amid COVID-19 resurgence cases in Region 1, designated by the Illinois Department of Public Health.
“The reality is it is what it is,” Waller said. “This statue gives the governor the authority to do what he’s doing. Whether you agree or not. He has authority for purposes of preserving public health, safety & welfare.”
My lawyer talked me out of filing suits more than once back in the day. He’s a good guy who provides sound legal counsel, even though he knows he’s leaving money on the table.
At some point, the state should consider asking for sanctions against attorneys who file lawsuits that are almost immediately (and, in this case, repeatedly) tossed out. Enough, already.
* Meanwhile…
While the closing of restaurants and bars to indoor dining has received much attention, there’s a third element to the restrictions put in place for DeKalb County’s health region, and county Health Administrator Lisa Gonzalez said it’s an important one.
Large gatherings were capped at 25 people or 25% of room capacity beginning last week. Gonzalez said these gatherings can range from weddings to church to graduation parties. Gonzalez said she saw a report from within the region about a quinceanera that had multiple cases tied back to it and mentioned that youth sports at both the club and IHSA levels were sources of spread as well.
“What we’re really trying to do is encourage people to limit participation in large gatherings at this time,” Gonzalez said. “But people are going to be attending these events. We’d really encourage, with nicer weather right now anyway, they consider attending outdoor events because the studies show that when you’re indoors and the ventilation isn’t as good, the spread ends up being greater.” […]
“I can tell you early on at NIU we don’t think there was much social distancing or masking happening,” Gonzalez said. “The good news is that at NIU we’re not seeing the number of cases we were early on. That tells me they’re making different choices now.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 11:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Asking for the haystack after we’ve already found the needle”
Next Post: IHSA doctor “misspoke or was misconstrued”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==At some point, the state should consider asking for sanctions against attorneys who file lawsuits that are almost immediately (and, in this case, repeatedly) tossed out.==
I agree. And I wish we could have done that 8-12 years ago with Blago’s attorneys.
Comment by Chatham Resident Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 12:10 pm
Blago being Blago, he would’ve just shopped around till he found an attorney willing to do what he wanted.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 12:58 pm
With Prejudice
Comment by Ok Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 1:55 pm
You won’t get sanctions until an appellate court or supreme court rules on the issue. The circuit court dismissals are not binding precedent, so Devore and his ilk can still claim they have a legitimate legal question until binding precedent is established.
Comment by Homebody Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 2:23 pm
==At some point, the state should consider asking for sanctions against attorneys who file lawsuits that are almost immediately (and, in this case, repeatedly) tossed out.==
Agreed…Regardless if there is no binding precedent in IL State courts, federal court ruling is persuasive. Also, per Rule 137’s trial court pleading sanctions, there is no reason a judge couldn’t find the arguments are not “well grounded in fact” or “warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law…”. No requirement there is binding precedent to issue sanctions (but the State needs to ask as you point out).
Comment by Simply Sayin' Friday, Oct 9, 20 @ 2:51 pm