Case Results

Chicago - Phoenix Trial & Appellate Lawyers

At the Nathanson Law Firm, with offices in Chicago and Phoenix, our attorneys focus their practice exclusively on trial and appellate work. Our firm represents individuals and businesses in a wide spectrum of litigation, ranging from shareholder and partnership disputes to medical and legal malpractice, professional negligence, wills trusts and estates contests, as well as products liability and defamation cases.

Examples of our firm's major pending and recently concluded cases are as follows:

Significant Current and Recently Concluded Cases:

• Lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Lozman v. Archipelago, et al.  The case alleging that the rights to the nation's first totally open all-electronic stock exchange, The Archipelago Exchange, trading 100% of listed and OTC stocks, were improperly acquired and taken from the plaintiff.  The Archipelago Exchange merged in 2005 with the New York Stock Exchange.  Pending.
• Lead counsel for the seller of a downtown Chicago office building in the real estate case entitled West Loop Associates v. 550 Jackson Associates, involving the purchaser's lawsuit to rescind the sale and obtain restitution of the $125 million dollar purchase price. The Nathanson Law Firm won the case in the trial court and the Illinois Appellate Court on behalf of the seller. The Illinois Supreme Court recently refused to hear the appeal of the purchaser.  Pending. 
• Lead counsel representing beneficiaries of a trust against a former corporate trustee of a multi-million dollar trust with the beneficiaries alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other claims.
• Lead counsel for the former owner of a suburban Chicago office building in the real estate case entitled American National Bank, et al. v. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan involving the owner's claim that Potash's breach and abandonment of its lease for space in the building resulted in the loss of millions dollars of rent and the loss of the equity in the building.  Pending.
• Lead counsel in a legal malpractice case against a major, national law firm, arising out of that firm's incorporation of a trading company to compete with another trading company that was previously incorporated by the same law firm.
• Lead counsel in a medical malpractice wrongful death case arising out of a cardiac catheterization procedure.
• Co-lead plaintiff's trial counsel in the 2006 medical and hospital malpractice trial, Mason v. Palos Community Hospital that resulted in a $3.5 million dollar recovery from the hospital. An appeal is still pending regarding the doctor's liability.
• Lead counsel in a civil rights, First Amendment retaliation case arising as a result of the murder of the plaintiff's daughter and the plaintiff's public comments about that crime.

Professional Negligence Cases in Which the Firm Was Lead Trial Counsel for the Plaintiff

Medical and Hospital Malpractice:

• Mason v. Palos Community Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (2006): The minor plaintiff suffered brain damage when he was discharged from the defendant hospital at 20 hours of life, even though he was not adequately feeding and appeared to be jaundiced. The plaintiff reached a $3.5 million dollar settlement at trial with the hospital. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant doctors.
• Ballard v. Loyola Medical Center, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1993): Death case involving failure to diagnose a ruptured appendix. The jury found in favor of the hospital and attending physician on liability.
• Taylor v. Jensik, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1992): Wrongful death and survival case involving the failure to diagnose a ruptured appendix. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for $2,368,000.
• Price v. Haydary, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1991): Wrongful death case involving obstetrical malpractice. Plaintiff contended at trial that plaintiff should have received a C-section when she presented at the hospital with a double footling breech. Several hours later the cord prolapsed and the baby was asphyxiated, dying several days later. The jury awarded a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $750,000.
• Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1990): Surgical and post-surgical malpractice following heart bypass surgery. The patient suffered 19 post-surgical seizures in the ICU that caused permanent brain damage. After an eight-week trial, the jury found for the plaintiff against the hospital and awarded $51,000 in damages. The jury also found against the plaintiff and in favor of the heart surgeons. The case was affirmed on appeal.
• Hyman v. Hora, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1989): Orthopedic malpractice arising out of total hip replacement surgery on a teenager. The jury returned a defense verdict for the doctor on liability.
• Miller v. Smith, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1987-1988): Orthopedic malpractice arising out of knee replacement. The first trial ended with a deadlocked jury. The retrial ended with a plaintiff's verdict for $16,000.

Legal Malpractice:

• Weisman v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (2004): Defendant Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the “defendant” or the “Schiller firm” or “plaintiff's former divorce attorneys”) represented the plaintiff, Wendy Weisman, in a divorce proceeding in the Circuit Court of Lake County. Plaintiff discharged the Schiller firm when the trial judge in Lake County denied that firm's Motion to Extend Discovery.  At the time their Motion to Extend Discovery was filed, the Schiller firm had not obtained compliance with its written discovery requests to the husband; had not taken the husband's deposition; had not furnished to its retained valuation experts the documents needed by those experts to formulate valuation opinions for trial; and therefore had not disclosed any expert opinions that could be used at trial.  The responsible attorneys from the Schiller firm admitted they were not ready for trial when their Motion to Extend Discovery was denied.
  
  Successor divorce counsel, Kaufman & Litwin (hereafter referred to as the “successor divorce counsel” or the “Kaufman firm”) took over the case for plaintiff, Wendy Weisman, in early January of 1995, following the denial of the Schiller firm's Motion to Extend the Discovery Cut-Off.  Successor counsel concluded at that point, however, that the case was not viable.  Simply put, successor divorce counsel felt the case had to be settled for whatever could be obtained because the case could not be tried due to the absence of experts, the absence of the documents needed to prove the husband's assets and the absence of valuations for all of the marital assets.  Accordingly, successor divorce counsel negotiated a settlement that the Kaufman firm and the plaintiff viewed as significantly below what plaintiff, the wife, should have obtained had the case been worked up properly in discovery by the Schiller firm.
  
  Following the entry of a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage in that Lake County action, the Schiller firm filed a fee petition in the Circuit Court of Lake County.  Thereafter, the Circuit Court of Lake County held a fee hearing.  At the conclusion of the fee hearing, the Circuit Court of Lake County entered a money judgment for approximately $50,000 in favor of the Schiller firm.  The charges for which the Schiller firm sought and obtained payment included the discovery requests pursuant to which they never obtained compliance from the husband and his attorneys.
  
  Plaintiff then filed this legal malpractice action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Schiller firm.  That defendant filed a motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Lake County attorney fee judgment barred the Cook County legal malpractice action under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The Circuit Court of Cook County granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based on defendant's preclusion arguments. This court, however, rejected those preclusion arguments and therefore reversed and remanded this case for jury trial. Weisman v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, 314 Ill. App. 3d 577, 580 (1st Dist. 2000).
  
  On remand, at the trial of this legal malpractice case, plaintiff contended that she should have or would have received a greater property division, and a greater maintenance award, had her former divorce attorneys, the defendant Schiller firm, prepared the property and maintenance parts of the case for trial before discovery was closed.  Plaintiff did not raise or attempt to litigate at the trial of this legal malpractice case whether the defendant Schiller firm had properly handled the custody and visitation aspects of her case. Plaintiff's contentions were limited to the property and maintenance parts of the case.

Product Liability:

• Chesek v. Look Cycle International, Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois (2005): The trial in this product liability case ended with a jury verdict for the defendant. The case involved a bicyclist who was wearing clip-on pedals that did not release upon impact with an automobile. The bicyclist had his leg amputated at the scene by the torsion involved when his leg was fixed by the pedal and his bicycle was hit by a car. The manufacturer blamed the driver of the car, who had settled with the plaintiff before trial.
• Inman v. Ryder Automotive Operations, Inc., et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1997): The trial in this product liability case ended with a jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $449,880.76. The case involved a driver of auto hauler trailers who was injured when he securing or tying down a new car to the trailer. The ratchet that is used to tighten the chain slipped, resulting in an upward jerk of the tie down bar that the driver was using to tighten the chain. The driver suffered a herniated disc and underwent fusion surgery. The defense settlement offer before trial was $35,000.

Personal Injury:

• Faust v. City of Highland Park, et al., Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois (1987): Auto accident between car and school bus. Philip J. Nathanson represented the auto driver and obtained a $40,000 verdict against the school bus driver and the municipality.

Business and Commercial Litigation:

• Stetson Street Land Partners v. Delaney, Case No. 05 CH 15396 (2006): Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiff real estate partnership against one of its partners.  The case alleged that the partner diverted corporate opportunities of the partnership relating to the development of a downtown Chicago property into a hotel.  After the plaintiff prevailed at an evidentiary hearing on a preliminary injunction, the case was settled.
• Schiff v. Arrow Chevrolet, Inc., Case no. 99 CH 12348: Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiff, a 20% shareholder in the defendant car dealership, in a shareholder's suit against the principal owner and the dealership alleging oppression of minority shareholders and breach of fiduciary duty.  The case involved emergency TRO proceedings, and a four-day evidentiary hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.  The trial judge entered the preliminary injunction for the plaintiff.  The case went to trial and the trial judge entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for more than $1,000,000.  The case settled shortly after defendants appealed.
• Schuman v. Arrow Chevrolet, Inc., Case no. 97 CH 15389, Circuit Court of Cook County, and Arrow Chevrolet, Inc. v. Riley, Case no. 84907, Supreme Court of Illinois (1997-1998): Represented the plaintiff, a 25% shareholder in two car dealerships, in a shareholder's suit against the principal owner and the dealerships.  The case involved emergency TRO proceedings, an emergency appeal to the appellate court, which resulted in the entry of a TRO in favor of our client, and a two-day evidentiary hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.  The trial judge entered the preliminary injunction for the plaintiff.  The defendants also initiated an original mandamus or supervisory order proceeding in the Supreme Court of Illinois.  After all of those proceedings, the case settled for what amounted to a $1,250,000 settlement.
• Lozman v. Archipelago, Case no. 99 CH 11347, Circuit Court of Cook County: Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiffs seeking to establish that they originated and conceived the business that ended up as the nation's first totally open all-electronic stock exchange trading 100% of listed and OTC stocks in the U.S. (www.archipelago.com), and various electronic day trading businesses.  Part of the case has already been litigated on appeal, and sent back to the circuit court for further proceedings.
• In re F/S Airlease 11, Inc., United States Bankruptcy Court (1986): Philip J. Nathanson represented an administrative claimant in this adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court.  The bankruptcy judge entered a $450,000 judgment after a trial. F/S Airlease 11, Inc. v. Simon, 59 B. R. 769 (Bkrtcy. W. D. Pa. 1986).

Cases Where Philip J. Nathanson Was Lead Trial Counsel for the Defense

Commercial Cases:

• Hub v. Lowis, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1994): Plaintiff became a limited partner in defendant's various real estate ventures.  She also cohabited with defendant for eight years.  She filed a chancery action seeking an accounting of profits from the real estate ventures and contended that a verbal agreement existed with defendant, my client, to share those profits on an equal basis.  Defendant's original mandamus petition in the Supreme Court of Illinois, arguing that Illinois did not recognize palimony claims, was denied.  The trial judge held a bench trial and entered a judgment for the defendant.  No appeal was taken.
• Strasser v. Kastil, U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona (1992): Philip J. Nathanson represented the defendant-purchasers of a luxury home in Paradise Valley, Arizona.  The builder sought $106,000 for extras.  After a one-week jury trial, the jury found for the builder against my clients.  Mr. Nathanson filed a post-motion that was denied.  The case was settled on appeal.
• J.M. Woolems, Inc. V. Kastil, Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida (1984): Philip J. Nathanson defended this construction case in Palm Beach County, Florida.  His clients purchased a luxury home there and retained the plaintiff-contractor.  The contractor sought an additional $150,000 for extras.   After a bench trial, the judge found for the defendants on the complaint and also found for my clients on their counter-claim alleging poor workmanship. (See discussion of appellate affirmance in the reported case section).

Divorce Cases:

• In re the Marriage of Wendland, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1989): Philip J. Nathanson represented the wife during this ten-day trial involving the valuation and division of her husband's real estate development business.  The trial judge awarded her a substantial portion of that business despite the claim that it constituted non-marital property and that the marriage only lasted four years.

Cases Where Philip J. Nathanson Was Co-Lead Trial Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Nathanson alternated witnesses before the jury and made opening statement and closing argument on liability in the following cases:

• Leek v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1995): Obstetrical Malpractice case alleging that the hospital and obstetrician failed to perform an emergency C-section when fetal distress was present. Baby was born with severe brain damage and spastic quadriplegia.  Plaintiff reached a $1,800,000 settlement with the defendants during the hearings on motions in limine, just prior to the selection of the jury.  Mr. Nathanson deposed the parties, numerous occurrence witnesses, and the defense experts.
• Darsch v. Lutheran General Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1994): Obstetrical and neonatal malpractice case alleging that the hospital and obstetrician failed to perform an emergency C-section when fetal distress occurred following the insertion of an intrauterine pressure catheter to monitor contractions.  Baby was born with severe seizures and blood loss.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the residents in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit failed to transfuse the baby, resulting in brain damage. Plaintiff reached a $5,200,000 settlement with the defendants after six weeks of trial, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.
• Ailey v. Northwestem Memorial Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1993): Obstetrical malpractice case contending the use of forceps during delivery caused the plaintiff to suffer brain injury. After a two-month trial, the jury returned a defense verdict for all defendants.
• Estate of Waldack v. Northwestem Memorial Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1992): Wrongful death case following brain surgery.  Plaintiff contended at trial that the brain surgeon lacerated the carotid artery with the laser during the surgery, resulting in post-operative exsanguination.  The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $300,000.  After the trial judge granted plaintiff's post-trial motion for a new trial due to defense counsel's prejudicial closing argument, the case was settled for $1,000,000.
• Davis v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois (1992): Obstetrical malpractice case contending that a C-section should have been performed due to fetal distress. The jury was deadlocked after three weeks of trial. The case was settled before the retrial for $600,000.
• Taylor v. West Suburban Hospital, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois (1992): Wrongful death and survival case involving the failure to diagnose a ruptured appendix. The case initially went to trial against numerous defendants, including the attending nephrologists, infectious disease specialist, the attending surgeon and the hospital. A mistrial was declared after the jury was deadlocked. The plaintiffs then reached a $540,000 settlement, before a retrial, with all of the defendants except the surgeon. Philip J. Nathanson retried the case against the surgeon (Taylor v. Jensik) as discussed above.

Cases Where Philip J. Nathanson Assisted or Second-Chaired Lead Trial Counsel

• Proctor v. Upjohn Co., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1992): Philip J. Nathanson assisted trial counsel, Barry D. Goldberg, and made the oral and written arguments in chambers on the issue of punitive damages.  He also drafted the jury instructions and participated in the instruction conference.  Mr. Nathanson did not examine any witnesses or argue before the jury. T he jury's verdict of $127,000,000 was one of the largest verdicts in the history of Illinois.
• Granados v. Harney, et al., Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois (1984): Philip J. Nathanson assisted partner, Peter D. Kasdin with the representation of the plaintiffs in the 10-week trial of this pediatric malpractice action.  The minor plaintiff entered the hospital as a normal one year-old with a high fever. He began to experience seizures and respiratory arrest. Plaintiffs contended the lack of treatment caused his spastic quadriplegia.  The defense contended the minor contracted Reye's Syndrome. An evidence deposition of a treating nurse that Mr. Nathanson took during trial was read to the jury.  Mr. Nathanson argued the in limine motions, argued evidentiary issues, prepared the jury instructions and conducted the instruction conference. He did not examine any witnesses in front of the jury.  Peter made the opening statement and the closing arguments. T he jury returned a plaintiffs' verdict for $10,800,000.
• Dugan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (1981): Philip J. Nathanson assisted Peter D. Kasdin with the defense of this products liability trial involving allegations that a lawnmower was unreasonably dangerous and caused a minor to lose an eye when the mower picked up a foreign object and propelled it toward the minor.  The jury returned a verdict for our clients, the defendants.
• Younger v. Thomas International Co., Circuit Court of St. Francis County, Arkansas (1980): Philip J. Nathanson was one of three co-counsels for defendant before and at trial in this class action suit by plant employees to recover severance pay upon the sale of the plant.  The judge in this bench trial entered a judgment for the defendant.  Mr. Nathanson examined one witness at trial and assisted with all other trial and discovery matters.

Appellate & Other Reported Decisions
Appellate Cases Philip J. Nathanson Where Wrote and Presented the Oral Argument

Illinois Cases

• Lozman v. Putnam, 328 Ill.App.3d 761 (1st Dist. 2002): Philip J. Nathanson represented one of two partners who began an electronic trading business. The suit, seeking in excess of $100,000,000, alleges that my client's former partner diverted the corporate opportunities of their original venture, which opportunities blossomed into Archipelago, the nation's first totally open all-electronic stock exchange trading 100% of listed and OTC stocks in the U.S. The Appellate Court, in its decision, dealt with the potential liability of that electronic stock exchange.
• Fabricare Equipment Credit Corporation v. Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, 328 Ill. App.3d 784 (1st Dist. 2002): This legal malpractice case alleged that the defendant law firm failed to seek a jury for the plaintiff's legal claims and instead pursued only equitable claims in the Chancery Division. The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court's dismissal of the case.
• Weisman v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, Ltd., 314 Ill. App. 3d 577 (1st Dist. 2000): Philip J. Nathanson won this appeal involving a multi-million dollar legal malpractice case against my client's former divorce attorneys. The issue on appeal was whether a divorce client may contest in an attorney fee hearing the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought by her former lawyers without being precluded on res judicata grounds from later bringing a claim for legal malpractice against those attorneys
• Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital, et al., 259 Ill.App.3d 730, 631 N.E.2d 1186, 197 Ill. Dec. 727 (1st Dist. 1994): After the jury verdict discussed above in the trial section, both sides filed post-trial motions, which were denied. Mr. Nathanson appealed for the plaintiffs and the defendant hospital cross-appealed on liability. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict in all respects. The lengthy opinion deals with many of the evidentiary issues raised.  The most significant issue was whether a defendant hospital was liable for all of the plaintiff's brain damage, when the jury determined that some of the brain damage was wrongfully caused and some was not.  For the first time an appellate court ruled that a jury may apportion indivisible brain damage using the testimony of all of the experts as a rough basis to approximate the damage that was wrongfully caused.
• Varilek v. Mitchell Engineering Co., 200 Ill. App. 3d 649, 558 N.E. 2d 365 (1st Dist. 1990), appeal denied, 133 Ill. 2d 574 (1990): The plaintiff was an ironworker who fell off the roof of a building containing excessively oiled roof panels. The plaintiff's trial attorney retained Philip J. Nathanson. The jury found for the plaintiff on a theory of strict liability and determined that the damages were $3.9 million dollars.  However, the jury reduced that amount because of the plaintiff's alleged assumption of risk and/or misuse.  On appeal, Mr. Nathanson wrote the brief and presented the oral argument for the plaintiff.  The Appellate Court awarded the plaintiff a new trial on damages only and eliminated any comparative fault defense at that new trial by entering a judgment n.o.v. on the issues of  "assumption of risk and/or misuse.”  The defendant's petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois was denied. The case was settled on remand.
• Brown v. Tenney, 125 Ill. 2d 348, 532 N.E. 2d 230, 57 U.S.L.W. (1988): Philip J. Nathanson represented the minority shareholder in this case of first impression in Illinois.  Mr. Nathanson sought to establish double derivative suits in Illinois.  The Circuit Court dismissed the suit for lack of standing on the ground that the plaintiff was only a shareholder in a holding company.  The plaintiff was not a shareholder in the wholly-owned subsidiary that was damaged by the defendants' conduct.  The Circuit Court rejected our double derivative theory. On appeal, the Appellate Court adopted the double derivative theory. Brown v. Tenney, 155 Ill. App. 3d 605, 55 U.S.L.W. 2618 (1987).  Thereafter, the Supreme Court of Illinois granted an appeal and ruled that Illinois should recognize double derivative suits and therefore affirmed the Appellate Court.
• Ruklick v. Julius Schmid, Inc., 169 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 523 N.E. 2d 1208 (1st Dist. 1988): Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiffs on appeal in this obstetrical malpractice and product liability case.  The case involved an I.U.D. and a subsequent infection.  Plaintiff underwent emergency hysterectomy surgery as a result of the untreated infection.  Another law firm filed suit in 1981 and thereafter voluntarily dismissed that suit in 1985.  Mr. Nathanson re-filed the suit in 1986. The Circuit Court dismissed the suit on statute of limitations grounds.  The Appellate Court reversed that dismissal and remanded the case for trial.  Mr. Nathanson reached a settlement with the defendants after that remand.
• Dillie v. Bisby, 106 Ill.2d 487, 478 N.E.2d 1338 (1985): Philip J. Nathanson represented an attorney in this case who failed to place a summons for service for 13 months after filing suit.  Mr. Nathanson obtained a voluntary dismissal to which the defendant objected. The defendant appealed the voluntary dismissal. Mr. Nathanson's associate argued in the first Appellate Court case.  That appeal was dismissed. Dillie v. Bisby, 121 Ill. App. 3d 559, 459 N.E.2d 1097 (3rd Dist. 1984). T he defendant petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal.  That petition was allowed, and Mr. Nathanson argued the appeal in the Supreme Court.  The issue in the Supreme Court was jurisdiction to review voluntary dismissal orders.  The Supreme Court ruled that appellate jurisdiction did exist to review such orders and remanded the case back to the Appellate Court.  The Appellate Court later ruled that a trial judge could consider the lack of diligence in service before ruling on a plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. Dillie v. Bisby, 136 Ill. App. 3d 170, 483 N.E.2d 307 (3rd Dist. 1985).

Florida Case:

• J.M. Woolems, Inc. v. Kastil, 461 So.2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984): After full briefing and oral argument, the District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial judge's judgment (see discussion of the trial above).

Federal Cases:

• Carmel v. Clapp & Eisenberg, P.C., 960 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1992): Philip J. Nathanson represented the trustee in bankruptcy in this legal malpractice action.  The bankrupt had retained the defendant attorney to negotiate and draft agreements regarding coal leases.  The leases eventually proved valueless.  Mr. Nathanson's former partner, Richard K. Wray, represented the trustee at the jury trial in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  Mr. Nathanson was retained to prosecute the appeal from the adverse jury verdict for the defendant.
• Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. den., 110 S. Ct. 2167 (1990): Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiff in this civil rights case. T he plaintiff was a parolee who was arrested for burglary.  He was found not guilty of burglary, but returned to jail. Thereafter, one of the other inmates severely beat him.  The District Court entered summary judgment for the defendants.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.
• Douglas v. Stallings, 870 F.2d 1242 (7th Cir. 1989): Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiffs in this medical malpractice case involving a severely retarded teenager.  The occurrence took place in Indiana.  The Indiana statute of limitations barred the suit before Mr. Nathanson was retained.  Accordingly, the only alternative available was to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.  The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on that issue.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.
• Schlifke v. Seafirst Corp., 866 F.2d 935, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 94,174 (7th Cir. 1989): Philip J. Nathanson represented the plaintiffs in this securities case involving an oil and gas limited partnership investment.  The District Court entered summary judgment for the bank that financed the deal. T he Court of Appeals affirmed.  Mr. Nathanson settled the case with the oil and gas partnership and the individual defendants.
• F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, 844 F. 2d 99 (3rd Cir. 1988): On appeal, the District Court affirmed liability but vacated the amount of the award. FIS Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, 84 B. R. 389 (W. D. Pa. 1986).  On further appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on liability grounds.

Appellate and Trial Level Cases Where Philip Nathanson Co-Authored the Brief, But Did Not Present Oral Argument

Illinois Cases:

• Rivas v. Westfield Homes Of Illinois, Inc., 295 Ill.App.3d 304 (2nd Dist. 1998): Suit for personal injuries that occurred at home inspection.
• Seder v. Arlington Park Race Track Corp., 134 Ill. App.3d 512, 481 N.E.2d 9 (1st Dist. 1985): Suit to recover racetrack winnings.
• Dugan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 113 Ill. App.3d 740, 454 N.E.2d 64 (1st Dist. 1983): Product liability suit involving a lawnmower accident.
• Van Jacobs v. Parikh, 97 Ill. App.3d 610 (1st Dist. 1981): In this motorcycle accident case, we represented the manufacturer defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from the negligent driver.

Federal Cases:

• Zakarian v. Prudential Ins. Co., 652 F. Supp. 1126 (N.D. Ill. 1987): Suit on life insurance policy; suicide defense.
• Zakarian v. Prudential Ins. Co., 626 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Ill. 1984)
• Lichter v. Paine, Webber, 570 F. Supp. 533 (N.D. Ill. 1983): Suit on brokerage agreement.

Arkansas:

• Younger v. Thomas International Co., 275 Ark. 327, 629 S. W. 2d 294 (1982): Philip Nathanson was one of three co-counsels for defendants. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of our client. (See trial report above.)

If you are involved in a legal controversy, or are contemplating civil action to resolve an on-going dispute, call the Nathanson Law Firm to arrange a consultation, and learn how our trial expertise can benefit you.  Phoenix: (480) 419-2578. Chicago: (312) 782-3322.