Stan has conducted an active appellate practice since 1973, in the Appellate Court of the Third District at Ottawa and the Fourth District at Springfield and has appeared on several occasions in the Illinois Supreme Court. His career has involved more than 60 appeals.

Following are brief summaries of a few more interesting cases (A complete list is attached):


1. Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Westervelt, 35 I11.App.3d 777, 342 N.E.2d 463 (1976), 67 II1.2d 207, 367 N.E.2d 661, 10 Il1.Dec. 208, 97 A.L.R.3d 582 (1977). Cert. Den. 434 US 1070, 98 S. Ct. 1252, 55 L.Ed.2d 772 (1977). The electric utility sued our client, a farmer, to place power lines on his farm. The trial court ruled that the farmer's land could not be valued as a subdivision and that aesthetic unsightliness of power lines could not be considered in assessing damages. At our request, the Appellate Court Third District and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that the farmer's land could be considered most valuable as a subdivision and that aesthetic damages were proper.

The United States Supreme Court refused to consider the farmer's constitutional claim for attorney fees.

This case was the subject of an article in American Law Reports, 3rd Edition, Vol. 97, pages 582-605. The case was cited by the American Law editors for its novel approach in getting full value for the farmer's land. 


2. Schilson v. Weinberg, 24 Il1.App.3d 967, 322 N.E.2d 210 (1975). At our request, the Appellate Court Third District reversed the trial court's dismissal of our farmer client's complaint and ruled that where our client alleged that his neighbor had a defective farm tile drain under our client's field, the law recognized the duty of the adjacent landowner to repair the tile.

The form of our complaint was adopted by Bancroft Whitney publishers (now Lawyers Cooperative Publishing) as a model complaint form in 1975 where it remains today at 9 American Jurisprudence, Pleading and Practice Forms, Drains and Drainage Districts, Section 161, page 73.


3. O'Brien v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 82 I11.App.3d

83, 401 N.E.2d 1356, 37 I11.Dec. 263 (1980). Our client, a local

businessman, sued a bank for intentional interference with his business. At our request, the Appellate Court Fourth District reversed the trial court's dismissal of our complaint and ruled that our client's complaint was proper where he claimed intentional interference with a valid business relationship by the lending institution, terminating the relationship and causing damage.


4. Farmers State Bank v. Doerinq, 80 Ill.Ap.3d 959, 400 N.E.2d 705, 37 I11.Dec. 285 (1980). The Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed the trial court at our request and ruled that our local businessman client's guarantee of an associate's personal debts to a lending institution did not extend to debts the associate guaranteed for a corporation.


5. Wilson v. M. & W. Gear, 110 I11.App.3d 538, 442 N.E.2d

670, 66 Ill.Dec. 244, 35 UCC Rep. Servo 685 (1982). In this case, the Appellate Court Third District approved the trial court's judgment in our favor and ruled that our client, a farmer, was protected under the Uniform Commercial Code when he purchased a grain drill from a financially ailing equipment dealer. The manufacturer had attempted to seize the drill from the dealer's inventory after the dealership failure, based on its security interest. Since the farmer had paid, he was protected under the Code.


6. Riblet Products Corp. V. Starr National, 242 I11.App.3d

988, 611 N.E.2d 68, 183 I11.Dec. 215 (1993). This is a technical procedural ruling approving our client, a local business, filing a counterclaim against a manufacturer and its president where the local business had controversy with an out-of-state manufacturer. The Appellate Court Third District made a procedural ruling in favor of our local business client, approving the counterclaim, and reversing the trial court in favor of our client on numerous points.


Attached, at the end of this document, is a complete list of Stan's appellate cases in the Third District, the Fourth District and the Illinois Supreme Court.