Yesterday the Illinois Supreme Court published its Oral Argument Calendar [pdf] for the May term, and the Court will hear oral argument in eight civil cases. The cases, with the issue or issues presented in each, are:

May 22:

Moore v. Chicago Park District, No. 112788 – Does an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice constitute the ‘existence of a condition of any public property’ as this expression is used in Section 3-106 of the Tort Immunity Act? See Tort Law.

Wilson v. Edward Hospital, No. 112898 – Are actual agency and apparent agency separate claims for purposes of the res judicata doctrine and the prohibition against claim-splitting set forth by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 462 (2008) and Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996), so that summary judgment entered on the actual agency claims in plaintiffs’ initial suit bars plaintiffs’ apparent agency claims in a refiled suit, even in the face of a ruling that there is a question of fact as to the apparent agency claims? See Tort Law.

Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, Nos. 112906/112993 – Does the doctrine holding that self-settled spendthrift thrusts are revocable per se survive the enactment of the Fraudulent Transfer Act? See Trusts and Estates.

Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., No. 112948 — (1) Does a defendant landowner have a duty of due care with respect to a nearly thirteen-year old injured while trying to jump aboard a slow-moving train on the landowner’s tracks? (2) Was the expert opinion presented by plaintiff sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the grounds that improvements were reasonably practicable and would have prevented the accident? See Tort Law.

May 23:

Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., No. 113204 – (1) Is an agreement mandating arbitration of all claims for more than $200,000 arising out of nursing home claims void for lack of mutuality on the grounds it is illusory? (2) Is an agreement to arbitrate applicable to a wrongful death claim where plaintiff signed the agreement only in the status of decedent’s "legal representative"?  See Arbitration.

Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., No. 113270 – Where the I-beam on a bridge the plaintiffs were constructing collapsed and fell, did the plaintiffs state a triable issue of fact on (1) the "relationship" prong of duty to preserve evidence, and (2) the "foreseeability" prong of the duty, meaning that a reasonable person would have foreseen that the beam was material to a potential civil action?  See Tort Law.

Country Preferred Insurance Co. v. Whitehead, No. 113365 – Is the provision of an Illinois automobile insurance policy imposing a two-year statute of limitations on uninsured motorists claims invalid as against public policy with respect to an accident which occurred in Wisconsin, where the statute of limitations for uninsured motorist claims is three years?  See Insurance.

In re Marriage of Coulter (Coulter v. Trinidad) – No. 113474 – May a trial court deny a petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction barring removal of the couple’s minor children, pending a full hearing, where the parties had previously agreed that the wife could remove the children from the state at any time after 36 months from entry of judgment? See Domestic Relations.