Legal Opinion · Dissent

Colvin v. Hobart Bros.

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1993No. 74197Published

1Dissent

JUSTICE HARRISON,

also dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

It is firmly established in Illinois that an attorney who is employed to represent his client in litigation has no authority to compromise, to consent to a judgment against his client, or to give up or to waive any right of his client in the absence of the express consent or authorization of that client. (County of Cook v. Patka (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 5, 11.) That is to say, an attorney who is authorized to represent a client in litigation does not necessarily possess the authority to conclude a settlement but must receive express…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. County of Cook v. PatkaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  2. Knisley v. City of JacksonvilleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  3. McAllister v. HayesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
  4. Kazale v. Kar-Lee FlowersAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
  5. Wetherbee v. FitchIllinois Supreme Court · 1886

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

Powered by the Exa API