Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

In re Friedman

Supreme Court of Illinois
392 N.E.2d 1333 (1979)


Facts

Friedman was the chief of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office. In two cases, Friedman asked officers to present false testimony to the court and persuaded witnesses not to appear in court in order to dupe defense attorneys into believing that his office was cooperating with bribery attempts. In each case, once the illegal bribery transaction had been consummated, Friedman instructed law enforcement officials to inform the court that they had committed perjury by lying about the appearance of witnesses and to explain the circumstances underlying the perjury. Friedman was ordered to appear before the state’s attorney disciplinary commission. The hearing board of the disciplinary commission found that Friedman had not violated any rules of professional conduct. The administrator of the disciplinary commission petitioned the disciplinary commission’s review board to reconsider the findings of the hearing board. The majority of the review board found that Friedman had violated rules of professional conduct and recommended that he be censured. Friedman appealed the review board’s recommendation to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Goldenhersh, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Underwood, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.