Posting of Shareware on Internet Does Not Imply Consent to Commercial Use. In a case of first impression, the court has held that a software creator's posting of the "shareware" version of its copyrighted computer software did not imply consent to commercial use, so that "software-of-the-month" company had no right to distribute such free shareware to its customers as part of its monthly service. Software creator expressly reserved distribution rights, so no "fair use" permitted. Storm Impact, Inc. vs. Software of Month Club, 1998 WL 466855 (N.D. Ill.)
Consumer Fraud Act Does Not Apply to Practice of Law. Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant attorneys charged excessive legal fees. Practice of law, including billing, is governed by Illinois Supreme Court, and not by legislature. Cripe vs. Leiter, Docket No. 84117, Ill. Sup. Ct. (Oct 22, 1998)
No RICO Action Against Majority Shareholder by Minority Shareholders to Recover Corporate Losses. Minority shareholders of closely held corporation could not maintain suit against the majority shareholder to recover losses they alleged were incurred as a result of majority shareholder's mismanagement. Shareholders limited to actions for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, inducing them to invest. Esposito vs. Soskin, 1998 WL 293018 (N.D. Ill.)
Employer Subject to Sanctions for Failure to Pay Medical Expenses for Worker's Comp Claim. Where Employer's policy to handle small Worker's Comp claims internally delayed reporting to insurer, and when insurer subsequently denied coverage for failure to report claim as required by policy, Employer subject to sanctions for failure to timely pay medical expenses. McMahan vs. Industrial Commission, Docket No. 84057, Ill. Sup. Ct. (October 22, 1998).
Employee Fired 6 Weeks After Announcing Pregnancy Not Illegally Fired. Even though timing of adverse act vis a vis announcement of pregnancy established, timing alone insufficient to state cause of action without evidence of connection between announcement and adverse act. Supervisor's sudden change in attitude insufficient where supervisor concerned about Plaintiff's scheduled absence from work. Marshall vs. American Hospital Assn., No. 970-2488 (Oct. 7, 1998) Appeal, N.D. Ill., E.Div.
Non-Compete Agreement Unenforceable. Non-Compete agreement precluding Defendant's employment by any funeral home having branches within 10-mile radius, or to preclude defendant from attending continuing education classes or business meetings regarding his employment as funeral director, or entering cemeteries within 10-mile radius is unreasonable and a restraint on trade. Sheehy vs. Sheehy, No. 1-97-3869 (1st Dist., October 6, 1998).
No Unemployment Compensation Due to "Kiss My Grits" Employee. Employee's quoted comment to supervisor insubordinate, even though not profane, violated standard of behavior employer had right to expect from any employee. Employee properly discharged for misconduct. Greenlaw vs. Dept. Of Employment Security, No. 1-97-0916 (1st Dist., September 28, 1998).
Corporate Veil Pierced Against Dominant Shareholder for IEPA Liability. Where dominant shareholder was alter-ego for corporation, never issued stock, recorded minutes or held meetings, corporate veil properly pierced. For example, other earlier shareholder testified that corporate meetings consisted of "standing around the yard talking." People vs. V&M Industries, Inc., No. 5-97-0352 (5th District, September 9, 1998.)
Employee's Diabetes was "Disability" Within Meaning of ADA. An employee's insulin-dependent diabetes in its untreated form was a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, even in its treated state, diabetes could be a disability within meaning of the Act. Erjavac vs. Holy Family Health Plus, 1998 WL 499599 ( N.D.Ill.)
Did You Know? The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether two of the nation's largest pension funds may sue Archer Daniels Midland Co. for the illegal acts that lowered the value of company stock held within the pension plans. The suit will allow the justices to resolve the unanswered question whether shareholders may challenge settlements of court cases they never formally joined.