Legal Opinion

Brush v. Gilsdorf

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 3, 2003No. 3 — 02 — 0047PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McDADE

Plaintiffs, Donald Lee Brush, Deborah Brush, and Danielle Brush, brought an action for breach of fiduciary duty against their attorneys Craig F. Pierce and Jesse R Gilsdorf and their law firm. The trial court ordered plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages stricken from the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 308(a)), which this court accepted. The sole question on appeal is whether punitive damages are available in an action for breach of fiduciary duty against an attorney. We find that they are not and we affirm.

BACKGROUN…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Knierim v. IzzoIllinois Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Estate of Wernick v. MacKsIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Neade v. PortesIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Bernier v. BurrisIllinois Supreme Court · 1986

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Donald Hoagland, as Receiver of Midwest Transit, Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
  2. LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
  3. Client Funding Solutions Corp. v. CrimDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013
  4. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008
  5. Interclaim Holdings Ltd. v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & PooleDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2004

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API