Burrell v. Southern Truss
Illinois Supreme Court
679 N.E.2d 1230 (1997)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Jennifer Burrell (plaintiff) filed a negligence complaint in circuit court against Southern Truss (defendant) and later settled her claims for $8,500. Three of Burrell’s creditors filed separate liens in circuit court against Burrell’s settlement proceeds. One lienholder asserted a lien for $913.65 under the Hospital Lien Act, and two lienholders asserted liens for $473 and $1,529, respectively, under the Physicians Lien Act. Burrell then filed a petition to adjudicate the liens, arguing that the total amount of the three liens exceeded one-third of her settlement proceeds. Although the three liens in total exceeded one-third of Burrell’s settlement amount, the separate total amounts claimed under the two separate lien acts did not exceed one-third of the settlement amount. That is, the total amount claimed under the Hospital Lien Act did not exceed one-third of $8,500, and the total amount claimed under the Physicians Lien Act did not exceed one-third of $8,500. The circuit court aggregated the three lien claims, limited the total recovery on the liens to one-third of Burrell’s settlement, and accordingly prorated the amounts to be distributed to the lienholders. The total paid to the lienholders did not exceed one-third of Burrell’s settlement. Two of the lienholders appealed. The appellate court affirmed this distribution to the lienholders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
Dissent (Harrison, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.