The Chicago Tribune reports that two brewery business partners, Isaac Showaki and Andres Araya, are engaged in litigation over a widespread dispute.  Having met 7 years ago while working for Bain Capital and consulting in Latin America for a brewer, the business partners set up a brewery in Chicago a bit less than two years.

Despite commercial success, including distribution deals with several local Chipotle franchises as well as other accolades, the business partners have a deeply personal dispute that has boiled over into the courtrooms.

The Chicago Tribune reports on a common issue among neighbors: how one can use land and what actions a neighbor can take on their neighbor's land.  As real property law is foundational, from the Court of Common Pleas in Coke's time to Learned Hand's NY jurisprudence, much of the controversies involving real property have been resolved.

After refusing to consider settlement in the case against an off-duty Chicago Police Officer who loudly used his office when threatening and eventually savagely beating Karolina Obrycka, a female bartender, the City is now willing to pay damages in exchange for limiting some very damaging precedent against the City, especially regarding tortious acts committed by its police officers.  

Two Chicago police officers who arrested a man filling up his tires at a gas station air pump were found liable for violating that man's civil rights by wrongfully arresting him.  The facts speak for themselves, but it must be noted that the Chicago Tribune observes that the City's Corporate Counsel failed to settle this case despite some very unsettling facts, including the fact the Chicago police officers changed their story regarding the Plaintiff and they both failed to appear at the aggravated battery hearing for the Plaintiff.

Blessed with qualified immunity and tort immunity generally, the City and its employees often hide behind either a blue wall of silence, like the Chicago Police has thrown up regarding the off-duty cop body slamming a female bartender, but also the City's Corporation counsel as is the case where the Chicago Police arrested a mentally ill California woman in Midway Airport and detained and released her into a south side neighborhood where she was eventually raped and fell off a building, ending up horribly injured. The CPD failed to adhere to department protocol related to the treatment of mentally suspect offenders and ignored clear evidence and fellow colleague appraisals regarding the mental health of the plaintiff.

No loving parent can stand by without acting when their child is harmed.  No parent should have to tolerate that.  When parents hire caregivers for their children, parents, or themselves, that caregiver is entrusted with a near sacred duty to preserve the health, dignity, and vitality of a loved one.  When that duty is breached, the harm can be tremendous in both physical pain, but also emotional turmoil.

Business owners need to understand how the law can protect them against competitors and insulate them from customer lawsuits.  To reinforce this lesson, consider Beef Products, Inc., a closely held South Dakota company that faced severe consequences from negative reports regarding their processed beef product.  When businesses are losing money stemming from interference with existing or future business relationships, business should contact a business attorney who can look at all of their options to remedy this threat and mitigate harm, including through litigation.

The Wall Street Journal, among others, is reporting that Beef Products Inc., , has sued ABC for defamation, tortious interference with contract (business relationship), and a state anti-food disparagement statute, among other claims.  The beef company also named Diana Sawyer, who reported on the story for ABC and microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein, who as a USDA food inspector investigating a food bacteria outbreak in 2002 toured a BPI plant and coined the term "pink slime" to describe their product.  BPI is suing these defendants for $1.20 billion, representing lost profits stemming from the alleged defamatory reporting and characterization of their product.

A Javan Macaque in Paso Robles California bit and severely injured a woman.   According to the Chicago Tribune, the monkey was subsisting on Frost Flakes cereal and juice.  Apparently, a monkey has a "dog-like bite" and bit the victim several times on her arms and fingers.

As a victim of an animal bite, that woman, if she was bitten in IL, would be able to seek damages from the owner of the pet.  Chicago, in particular, has a dog-bite statute that provides remedies for pets, especially those from certain breeds or those that have a prior history of violent behavior.

A jury awarded a University of Michigan student $4.5 million based on the actions of a former Michigan assistant attorney general who wrote negatively about the student on his personal blog.

You know the old saying, an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.  Well, the foolish former assistant attorney general represented himself and stubbornly went down with his own ship.  Relying entirely on a First Amendment defense, he refused to accept a settlement offer to apologize and retract his comments that the student used alcohol to entire minors to have sex with him.

Employment litigation can often enter the news when it involves salacious or outrageous details, but newsworthy or not, not every employment dispute can be resolved through litigation.  Retaliatory discharge (or demotion) claims can often be messy, but employers are not allowed under Federal and Illinois law to retaliate against employees for protected conduct.  Employers can insulate themselves from liability by developing procedures and documentation.  We can discuss with any size company measures that protect everyone from potential harm.

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") prohibits an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge" under Title VII.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).  Title VII allows "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, the statute permits a civil lawsuit to "be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by the alleged unlawful employment practice."  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (b), (f)(1).