Court Opinion

ID: 9713942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:26:46.804523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:21.931875
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring: I concur. However, I desire to emphasize an aspect of this case, which I believe judicial economy and a uniform body of law require. The complaint filed herein was not attacked for failing to state a cause of action under section 2 — 615. Rather, the defendants attacked the sufficiency of the complaint under section 2 — 619 claiming there was no recognizable breach of duty. The majority correctly determined that a breach of duty was sufficiently alleged. The majority then questioned whether any damages may be proved but did not make further comment. I submit that the parties and the trial court should review Superdawg Drive-In, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 162 Ill. App. 3d 860 (1987). That case stands for the proposition that a plaintiff, in order to prove the right to recover more than nominal damages, must not only establish a due process violation but must also show that, if due process had been given, the end result would have not been the same, i.e., that the expert witness in this case would not have inevitably received the confidential information but for the due process violation. Based upon the present record, it remains to be seen if the plaintiff can recover more than nominal damages.