Wilson v. Moore
| Court | Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | McNAMARA |
| Citation | Wilson v. Moore, 301 N.E.2d 39, 13 Ill.App.3d 632 (Ill. App. 1973) |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57889,57889 |
| Parties | Joe Edward WILSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Simon MOORE and Samuel Spears, Defendants-Appellants. |
McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Haskell, Chicago (Royce Glenn Rowe, Patrick E. Maloney, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Plaintiffs filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County to recover damages caused by the negligence of defendants in the operation of an automobile. Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defense. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed, and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the trial court entered an Ex parte order awarding fees to plaintiffs' attorney, Lee J. Snitoff. The court denied defendants' motion to vacate the order awarding attorney's fees, and defendants appeal.
Although appellees have failed to file an appearance or answering brief in this court, we will consider the merits of the appeal. Daley v. Richardson (1968), 103 Ill.App.2d 383, 243 N.E.2d 685.
On March 23, 1969, the four plaintiffs were injured as the result of a collision with an automobile owned by defendant Spears and operated by defendant Moore. Claims were made on behalf of the plaintiffs by Lee Snitoff. On April 5, 1969, the Inter Insurance Exchange of the Chicago Motor Club, defendants' insurance carrier, settled the claims directly with the four plaintiffs for a total sum of $3,050.00. At the same time, the insurance carrier obtained a statement from the plaintiffs that their attorney had solicited their business to obtain his contract of employment.
On March 23, 1971, Lee Snitoff filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs for injuries sustained in the 1969 accident. Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defense seeking a dismissal of the suit on the basis of the prior settlement. On July 20, 1971, the trial court allowed defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the suit.
On March 22, 1972 plaintiffs' attorney, without notice to defendants or to their counsel, obtained an order of court awarding him attorney's fees. Defendants learned of the fees order in May, 1972. On May 26, 1972 defendants moved the court to vacate the order awarding fees or in the alternative for a hearing on the merits. This appeal follows a denial of that motion.
By statute, rule and case law, defendants were entitled to notice of plaintiffs' motion for...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
City of Chicago v. American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago
...give notice thereof. (Maras v. Bertholdt (1984), 126 Ill.App.3d 876, 881, 81 Ill.Dec. 728, 467 N.E.2d 599; see Wilson v. Moore (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 633, 301 N.E.2d 39.) Adelman clearly was entitled to The two February 1987 orders did not merely reflect what appeared on the half-sheet,......
-
Marriage of Collins, In re
...party entitled to notice with a copy of a motion does not render an order based on that motion void). But see Wilson v. Moore (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 633, 301 N.E.2d 39, 40 (award of attorney's fees entered on a motion not served on the other party held to be void); Vlahakis v. Parker (1......
-
Hartman v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
...to notice with a copy of an order decided without the presence of the unserved party resulted in a void order); Wilson v. Moore (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 633, 301 N.E.2d 39, 40 (award of attorney fees entered on a motion not served on the other party held to be void); Vlahakis v. Parker (1......
-
Hubbard v. Hubbard
...v. Beckwith (1930), 260 Ill.App. 7; Hickman v. Ritchey Coal Co. (1929), 252 Ill.App. 560. Defendant, however, citing Wilson v. Moore (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39, contends that an order entered without notice to the other party is void. Defendant points out that in Wilson, the a......