Cole v. Lee

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Before we can consider the merits of Cole’s contentions, we observe that several of his citations to authorities are incorrect, including attributing propositions to authorities that those authorities simply do not support. For example, citing to Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005), Cole asserts that claims under the Consumer Fraud Act that seek damages are legal claims triable to a jury. However, Avery contains no support for that proposition. Additionally, citing to People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1 (1991), Cole asserts that where legal and equitable issues are joined, the legal issues must be tried to a jury. Datacom likewise contains no support for that proposition. In addition to attributing propositions to authorities that those authorities do not support, Cole also cites to multiple cases with incorrect citations. ... Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), an appellant’s brief must contain argument “with citation of the authorities.” Implicit in this requirement is that citations to authority be accurate. ... Cole’s repeated inaccuracies in this case have prevented meaningful review of his contentions of error and improperly shifted the burden of legal research onto this court. ... Accordingly, we strike Cole’s brief and dismiss his appeal.

Authorities cited in the passage: Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) · People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1 (1991) · Stephens v. Kasten, 383 Ill. 127 (1943) · In re Estate of Mulvaney, 128 Ill. App. 3d 133 (1984) · Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) · Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC, 2026 IL App (1st) 242451-U