Thomas Fitzgerald
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Thomas R. Fitzgerald is the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court. Fitzgerald attended Loyola University, Chicago before enlisting in the United States Navy. Following his tour of duty in the Navy, he graduated with honors from The John Marshall Law School, where he was a founder of the school’s current law review and served as associate editor of it.
Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court are elected to serve ten-year terms in partisan elections; Fitzgerald serves as a Democrat. His current term expires in 2010.
Legal background
Justice Fitzgerald began his law career as a prosecutor in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. When first elected to the bench in 1976, he was the youngest Cook County Judge. He served as a trial judge in the Criminal Court from 1976 to 1987 when he was assigned Supervising Judge of Traffic Court. In 1989 he returned to the Criminal Division as Presiding Judge. He was also appointed to serve as presiding judge of Illinois’ first statewide Grand Jury. He was elected to the Supreme Court of Illinois for the First District in 2000.
Professional Experience:
- Justice, Illinois Supreme Court, First District, 2000-present
- Elected, Justice, Illinois Supreme Court, First District, 2000
- Presiding Judge, Cook County Criminal Courts, 1989-2000
- Supervising Judge, Traffic Court, 1987-1989
- Assistant Coordinator, Chicago-Kent College of Law Trial Advocacy Program, 1986-1996
- Judge, Cook County Criminal Courts, 1976-1987
- Prosecutor, Cook County State's Attorney's Office
- Instructor, Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the Courts
- Professor, John Marshall Law School
- United States Navy
Teaching activities
Justice Fitzgerald has taught at The John Marshall Law School and Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he was assistant coordinator of the trial advocacy program from 1986 to 1996. He also has taught at the Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the Courts.
Supreme Court Committees and Commissions
- Board of Admissions to the Bar - oversees the process of admitting law school graduates to the practice of law. Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, liaison officer.
- Committee on Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-studies and recommends new pattern jury instructions for criminal cases or modifications to existing instructions. Hon. Bertina E. Lampkin, Chair; Patrick J. Cotter, Esq., Reporter; John F. Erbes, Esq., SIU School of Law, Professor-Reporter; Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, liaison officer.
- Special Supreme Court Committee on Capital Cases-studies the trial sentencing processes in capital cases in Illinois. Judge Michael P. Toomin, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chair; Prof. Lorraine A. Schmall, NIU College of Law, Professor-Reporter; Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, liaison officer.
- Special Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues-formulates methods to expedite review of child custody cases. Judge Robert J. Anderson and Judge Karen G. Shields, Chairs; Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald and Justice Rita B. Garman, liaisons.
On the Issues
Opinion by Illinois Supreme Court Striking Down Grandparent Visitation Rights - April 18, 2002
At issue in these consolidated cases is whether certain provisions of section 607 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act), commonly called the grandparent visitation statute, violate a parent's due process rights. See 750 ILCS 5/607(b)(1), (b)(3) (West 2000).[1]
On Class Actions/Class Action Abuse
- The majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, concluded, amongst other things, that defendant Intel's representation that its Pentium 4 computer processer was the best and fastest on the market, in contrast to its prior model, the Pentium 3 processer, was not a statement subject to attack as fraudulent, or as a "deceptive business practice" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In so ruling the Court overturned the decision of the circuit judge where the case originated, in notorious Madison County, Illinois.
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in the majority opinion, which held that Based on these other authorities, read in conjunction with Illinois law, we conclude that the FTC could, and did, specifically authorize all United States tobacco companies to utilize the words “low,” “lower,” “reduced” or like qualifying terms, such as “light,” so long as the descriptive terms are accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the “tar” and nicotine content. Thus Philip Morris could not be liable for defrauding smokers by using these terms, even if the terms were not accurate. In so ruling the Court overturned a contrasting $10.1 billion jury award out of notorious Madison County, Illinois. Justice Karmieir also wrote his own Concurring Opinion, in which Justice Fitzgerald joined.
EXPRESSION OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IN MAJORITY OPINION:
ON JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATURE: "Finally, we share the concerns expressed by plaintiffs and their amici about the devastating health effects of smoking and, in particular, the scourge of smoking among young people. We emphasize that because this action is barred by section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of plaintiffs' claim that PMUSA intentionally deceived the public. Our resolution of the present case is in no way an expression of approval of PMUSA's alleged conduct. Nevertheless, as justices, our role is to apply the law as it exists, not to decide how the law might be improved. We must defer to the policy of the legislature as expressed in the language of the Consumer Fraud Act. Therefore, plaintiffs and others who would seek to alter the conduct of tobacco companies must take their case to the General Assembly, where they might seek amendment of section 10b(1); to the FTC, where they might seek changes in regulations; or to Congress, where they might seek amendments to the Labeling Act."
HOLDING IN JUSTICE KARMEIER AND JUSTICE FITZGERALD'S CONCURRING OPINION
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in Justice Karmeier's Concurring Opinion, which held that "[P]laintiffs failed to establish that they sustained actual damages. In reaching this conclusion, I hasten to add, as the majority opinion did, that rejection of plaintiffs' cause of action should in no way be construed as an endorsement of [Philip Morris]]'s conduct. Our reversal of the circuit court's judgment is not an exoneration of [Philip Morris]. It is merely a conclusion that this particular cause of action by this particular group of claimants seeking this particular form of recovery cannot be sustained under the law of Illinois.
On Criminal Justice
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier, over the vigorous and lenghty dissent of Justice Charles E. Freeman (in which justice Thomas L. Kilbride and Justice McMorrow joined), which concluded amongst other things, that although a judge cannnot defer to a sheriff's department in allowing all criminal defendants to be wired with electronic stun belts, and although stun belts are only warranted where a manifest need is shown, the wiring criminal defendants with electronic stun belts during their trials did not, on its own, violate the defendants due process rights, or rights to a fair trial.
On Employer and Employee Rights
- The majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, concluded, amongst other things, that the defendant, a labor union that falsely picketed the plaintiff corporation with signage indicating that the corporation was paying its workers below the prevailing wage, was entitled to have the jury's punitive damages award against it reduced from $325,000 to $50,000, under the belief that the award represented a 75 to one ration of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and was thus in violation of the labor union's due process rights.
- Justice Rita G. Garman was the lone dissenting vote, noting that "[b]ecause I believe the majority's decision in this case does not adequately vindicate the goals of punitive damage awards, I respectfully dissent. While the majority cites the goals of punishment and deterrence as informing its punitive award against the union, the resulting award of $50,000 does not achieve the purpose of those goals."
On Negligence
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Rita B. Garman, over the vigorous and lenghty dissent of Justice McMorrow, in which Justice Charles E. Freeman joined concluded that, where a driver errantly drover her vehicle over the sidewalk and into a Burger King restaraunt, causing the death of a patron sitting in the restaruant, Burger King owed a legal duty to that patron to protect him. In doing so, the Court abandoned the opposite precedent, which had been established in Illinois in Stutz v. Kamm (1990) (Court refused to impose premises liability where a driver had driven through a wall and into a waiting room because the injury was unforeseeable); and Simmons v. Aldi-Brenner Co. (1987) (storekeeper and owners had no duty to protect customers against injury caused by driving automobile through storefront)
On Property Rights
On Regulation
- The majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, concluded, amongst other things, that defendant Intel's representation that its Pentium 4 computer processer was the best and fastest on the market, in contrast to its prior model, the Pentium 3 processer, was not a statement subject to attack as fraudulent, or as a "deceptive business practice" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In so ruling the Court overturned the decision of the circuit judge where the case originated, in notorious Madison County, Illinois.
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in the majority opinion, which held that Based on these other authorities, read in conjunction with Illinois law, we conclude that the FTC could, and did, specifically authorize all United States tobacco companies to utilize the words “low,” “lower,” “reduced” or like qualifying terms, such as “light,” so long as the descriptive terms are accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the “tar” and nicotine content. Thus Philip Morris could not be liable for defrauding smokers by using these terms, even if the terms were not accurate. In so ruling the Court overturned a contrasting $10.1 billion jury award out of notorious Madison County, Illinois. Justice Karmieir also wrote his own Concurring Opinion, in which Justice Fitzgerald joined.
EXPRESSION OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IN MAJORITY OPINION:
ON JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATURE: "Finally, we share the concerns expressed by plaintiffs and their amici about the devastating health effects of smoking and, in particular, the scourge of smoking among young people. We emphasize that because this action is barred by section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of plaintiffs' claim that PMUSA intentionally deceived the public. Our resolution of the present case is in no way an expression of approval of PMUSA's alleged conduct. Nevertheless, as justices, our role is to apply the law as it exists, not to decide how the law might be improved. We must defer to the policy of the legislature as expressed in the language of the Consumer Fraud Act. Therefore, plaintiffs and others who would seek to alter the conduct of tobacco companies must take their case to the General Assembly, where they might seek amendment of section 10b(1); to the FTC, where they might seek changes in regulations; or to Congress, where they might seek amendments to the Labeling Act."
HOLDING IN JUSTICE KARMEIER AND JUSTICE FITZGERALD'S CONCURRING OPINION
- Justice Fitzgerald concurred in Justice Karmeier's Concurring Opinion, which held that "[P]laintiffs failed to establish that they sustained actual damages. In reaching this conclusion, I hasten to add, as the majority opinion did, that rejection of plaintiffs' cause of action should in no way be construed as an endorsement of [Philip Morris]]'s conduct. Our reversal of the circuit court's judgment is not an exoneration of [Philip Morris]. It is merely a conclusion that this particular cause of action by this particular group of claimants seeking this particular form of recovery cannot be sustained under the law of Illinois.
Associations and Awards
Organizations: Board of Managers, Chicago Bar Association Chairman Constitutional Law and Long Range Planning Committee, Chicago Bar Association Past President, Illinois Judges Association Committee Chair, Illinois Judicial Conference.
Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees: Committee on Constitutional Law, Chicago Bar Association Committee on Long-Range Planning, Chicago Bar Association Cook County's Judicial Advisory Council Governor's Task Force on Crime and Corrections Chair, Illinois Supreme Court Special Committee on Capital Cases.
Justice Fitzgerald has been awarded the Outstanding Judicial Performance Award by the Chicago Crime Commission and honored as Celtic Man of the Year by the Celtic Legal Society. He received the Herman Kogan Media Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism. The Lawyers’ Assistance Program honored him in 2000 with the Hon. John Powers Crowley Award. He is the 2001 recipient of The John Marshall Law School Freedom Award. In 2003, Justice Fitzgerald was awarded the Joel Flaum Award by the Chicago Inn of Court and the Chicago-Kent College of Law Professional Achievement Award. In 2005, Justice Fitzgerald was named Catholic Lawyer of the Year by the Catholic Lawyers Guild of Chicago. He is a member of the Leo High School Hall of Fame.
Justice Fitzgerald has served as president of the Illinois Judges’ Association, chair of the Illinois Supreme Court Special Committee on Capital Cases, member of the Governor’s Task Force on Crime and Corrections, chairman of several committees of the Illinois Judicial Conference, member of the Chicago Bar Association’s Board of Managers and past chairman of the Chicago Bar Association’s committees on constitutional law and long-range planning.
Justice Fitzgerald is also involved with ASTAR-The Advanced Science and Technology Adjudication Resource Center, Inc., Board of Directors.[2]
In the News: Articles
- DRUG NIGHT COURTS: THE COOK COUNTY EXPERIENCE[3]
- High Court Allows 'Future Injury' Damages (May 23, 2002) [4]
- Illinois Man Is Finally Cleared in 2 Murders (NYT:March 12, 1999) [5]
External links
- Thomas R. Fitzgerald bio at the Supreme Court of Illinois
- Supreme Court of Illinois
- Photo
- Law Prose Interview
References
- ↑ Opinion by Illinois Supreme Court Striking Down Grandparent Visitation Rights - April 18, 2002
- ↑ ASTAR Mission and Leadership
- ↑ DRUG NIGHT COURTS: THE COOK COUNTY EXPERIENCE
- ↑ High Court Allows 'Future Injury' Damages
- ↑ Illinois Man Is Finally Cleared in 2 Murders (NYT:March 12, 1999)]
| |||||
Portions of this article have been taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Copyright Notice can be found here.
