Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Federal Deposit Insurance v. O'Malley

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 25, 1993No. 1-90-1718Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While I agree with the analysis of the majority as to the merits of the claim of the FDIC against the defendant, I must disagree with respect to the analysis of the issues raised under Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(c). (134 Ill. 2d R. 63(C)(1)(c).) Under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(c), a judge must disqualify himself unless all agree otherwise in writing if, “for a period of seven years following the last date on which he represented such a party, he represented any party to the controversy while he was an…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. Del VecchioIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Woods v. DurkinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API