Court Opinion

ID: 9721015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:46:37.935806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:22.726407
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, dissenting: I respectfully and regrettably dissent. The majority opinion correctly states the facts and is well written. There is strong argument for including oral motions under the punitive provisions of section 2—611. However, the section is penal in nature and thus must be strictly construed. (Ignarski v. Heublein (1988), 171 Ill. App. 3d 830, 833, 525 N.E.2d 995, 997.) Because of history of the section applying first to pleadings and then to pleadings and writings, I feel compelled to hold that the section, which is now a supreme court rule, does not apply to oral motions. I wholeheartedly agree that attorney Lewis’ conduct called for sanctions of some type.