Miscellaneous

Alderson v. Fatlan

• Page 600

  [W]here there are multiple owners of the bed of a private, nonnavigable lake, such owners and their licensees have the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the surface waters of the entire lake provided they do not unduly interfere with the reasonable use of the waters by other owners and their licensees.

  Note:

  This is known as the "civil rule". The opposing "common law rule" (which is not common law in Illinois) says that people only have rights over water actually above their land.

• Page 601

  [R]iparian rights do not extend to artificial bodies of water.

• Page 601

  An artificial waterway or stream may, under some circumstances, have the characteristics and incidents of a natural watercourse. In determining the question, three things seem generally to be taken into consideration by the courts:

  1. whether the way or stream is temporary or permanent;
  2. the circumstances under which it was created; and,
  3. the mode in which it has been used and enjoyed. Where the way is of a permanent character, and is created under circumstances indicating an intention that it shall become permanent, and it has been used consistently with such intention for a considerable period, it is generally regarded as stamped with the character of a natural watercourse, and treated, so far as the rules of law and the rights of the public or of individuals are concerned, as if it were of natural origin.

Bradshaw v. Daniel

Page 872, Bottom

[T]he existence of the physician-patient relationship is sufficient to impose upon a physician an affirmative duty to warn identifiable third persons in the patient's immediate family against foreseeable risks emanating from a patient's illness.

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul

• See:

  Preemption

• See:

  Equal Protection

• See:

  Commerce Clause

Lewis v. Surgery & Gynecology, Inc.

• Page HN1

  [T]he enforceability of a covenant not to compete depends on its "reasonableness."

• Page HN2

  "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public."

• In determining whether a non-compete is reasonable, the following factors should also be considered:

  • Whether there are time and space limitations
  • Whether the employee is the only contact with the customer
  • Whether the employee has trade secrets
  • Whether it tries to stop competition would be unfair to the employer or ordinary competition
  • Whether it seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee
  • Whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee
  • Whether it operates as a bar to the employee's sole means of support
  • Whether the employee's talent was developed during the period of employment
  • Whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment

• If it is unreasonable, courts can fashion a reasonable non-compete.

Nix v. Hedden

Tomatoes are vegetables.

Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark

• Employers can be liable for torts committed off-duty by their employees, but usually this is only if they are committed on the employer's premises or with its chattels.

• Page 309

  Though the decisional law of this State has yet to address the precise issues presented by this case, factors which should be considered in determining whether the law should impose a duty are the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and consequences of placing that burden on the employer.

  While a person is generally under no legal duty to come to the aid of another in distress, he is under a duty to avoid any affirmative act which might worsen the situation. One who voluntarily enters an affirmative course of action affecting the interests of another is regarded as assuming a duty to act and must do so with reasonable care.

hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp.

• Page 11

  "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."

• Although monetary loss alone is not normally enough for irreparable harm, a threat of "extinction" of a business is.