(815) 726-4311
  • History
  • Attorneys
    • James C. Byrne
    • John M. Spesia
    • Christian G. Spesia
    • Jeffrey S. Taylor
    • Michael R. Stiff
    • Bradley S. McCann
    • Jacob E. Gancarczyk
    • Michael A. Santschi
    • E. Kent Ayers
    • Thomas M. Ewert
    • Kent F. Slater
    • Jonathan W. Powell
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Eminent Domain
    • Employment & Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Business & Tax Planning
    • Real Estate & Zoning
    • Energy & Utilities
    • School Law
    • Municipal Law
    • Estates, Wills & Trusts
    • Appellate Practice
  • News & Cases
  • Testimonials
  • Philanthropy
  • Contact
  • Home
You are here: Home / News & Cases / A Reviewing Court’s Power To Deny Oral Argument

A Reviewing Court’s Power To Deny Oral Argument

November 8, 2019

By: Jacob E. Gancarczyk

Oral argument provides both advocates and the court with a valuable opportunity to exchange ideas and discuss issues related to a particular case. In many cases, it may be the last time for a party to present its most favorable arguments to the court and may be the only opportunity for a party to answer specific questions from the justices deciding the case. A recent amendment to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules stresses that a reviewing court’s power to deny oral argument is limited.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352 permits a reviewing court to decide a case without oral argument if “no substantial question is presented.” Prior to 2018, Rule 352 did not require a reviewing court to provide its specific basis for disposing of a case without oral argument. For example, the following is the entirety of a reviewing court’s order disposing oral argument prior to 2018:

ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION, Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 352(a) oral argument is dispensed with in the above-encaptioned case. This case will hereafter be submitted to the Court and a disposition will be filed in due course.

On May 25, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court amended Rule 352 to include the following underlined language:

“[T]he court may dispose of any case without oral argument if no substantial question is presented, but this power shall be exercised sparingly and only upon the entry of a written order stating with specificity why such power is being exercised in the affected case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, oral argument shall be held in any case in which at least one member of the panel assigned to the case requests it.”

The language went into effect on July 1, 2018. Thus, a reviewing court is now required to provide the specific basis – i.e. why a particular case does not pose a substantial question – when it denies a party’s request for oral argument.

What Is a Substantial Question?
In Enbridge Pipelines (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Hoke, 2019 IL App (4th) 150544-B, the Fourth District Appellate Court provided factors a court can consider in determining whether a substantial question is before the court. In Hoke, the trial court sanctioned an attorney in the amount of $61,516.00 for filing frivolous allegations. Hoke ¶17. On appeal, the sanctioned attorney and opposing party requested an oral argument pursuant to Rule 352. In deciding whether to allow oral argument, the Fourth District found the following factors persuasive when determining whether a substantial question had been presented:

“(1) the appeal is frivolous, (2) the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided, or (3) the court would not be significantly aided by oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record.” Hoke ¶67 citing Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Fourth District found that each of the foregoing factors were present, denied the request for oral argument, and affirmed the award of sanctions against the attorney. Hoke ¶¶70, 72

Conclusion
The amendment to Rule 352 does not guarantee a party oral argument. The decision to allow oral argument is still within the reviewing court’s authority. However, under the amended rule, cases in which oral argument is denied will hopefully be the outlier, not the norm, as was the case in Hoke where the issue on appeal related to “meritless” arguments. Hoke ¶70. The amendment to Rule 352 should make it more likely that a party will have its opportunity to exchange its ideas about a case before a reviewing court.

Filed Under: News & Cases

Schedule a Consultation:

Contact us today to set up a time to speak with a Spesia & Taylor professional about your legal needs. CLICK HERE!

Featured News:

Spesia & Taylor Donates to the Spanish Community Center Food Pantry

Spesia & Taylor has stepped in to help the Spanish Center of Joliet with a donation to its food pantry. According to Veronica Gloria, Executive ... Read More

Spesia & Taylor and Attorney Brad McCann are Open for Business to Meet Your Trust, Estate, and Corporate Needs

All of us have been adjusting how we live our lives or how we conduct business in light of Covid-19. As Governor Pritzker makes changes to what is ... Read More

Witnesses In The Era Of Covid-19; Signing Important Documents During Social-Distancing

Executive Order From Governor Pritzker on Witnesses During Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation On March 26, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive ... Read More

The COVID-19 CARES Act; How It Effects Your Financials And 2020 Taxes

Summary Of Tax And Financial Factors Of The CARES Act The CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act was signed into law on March 27, ... Read More

COVID-19 Update – Spesia & Taylor is Open for Business

During these unprecedented times, Spesia & Taylor remains committed to providing legal services while protecting the health and safety not only of ... Read More

1415 Black Road
Joliet, IL 60435
Phone: (815) 726-4311
Fax: (815) 846-2410

Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Sitemap

footer-logo-1footer-logo-3footer-logo-4


© Copyright 2018 Spesia & Taylor Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Design by MoatzArt