◆ SpookStack

* App. 2d 502, 333 N.EW2d 663 (1975) The Supr , hois reinstated the Probate judge's ruling, holding that under a ‘of Illinois’ which reffsed the Probate judge’ uling. 30 Ill. Court of Illi- of the decedent prosecuted an appeal to the es Court cy pres doctrine, the American Cancer Society was entitled to the bequest. 65 Ill. 2d 382, 359 N.E. 109 (1976) At the appellate level, the Illinois Attorney General's office successfully joined the suit, urging that the bequest be given to the American Cancer Society. .J was lead counsel in the Probate proceedings and . worked extensively on the Appellate Court briefs but had left i the firm to return to Chicago before the case was decided in either the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court of Illinois. The Probate judge was the Honorable Robert E. Coney, Circuit Court of Peoria Co , Peoria, Illinois. The opposing cotnsel was b6 b7Cc © OL my associates in aw review article on the case. Gettleman, Robert and David R. Hodgeman, Judicial Constitutionality of Charitable Bequests: Theory vs. Practice, 53 Chi. Kent L. Rev. 659 (1977) 3) Illinois Bell Telephone Company vs. Illinois Commerce Commission. I was hired as counsel by the Community Fund of Chicago and other Illinois charities to petition before the Illinois Supreme Court for a rehearing of a ruling by the court that the Illinois Commerce Commission was entitled to rule that regulated utilities could not use charitable contributions as operating expenses in determining their rate base. Since the regulated utilities in Illinois are an extensive source of funds for charities, including hospitals, universities, etc., the matter was of the gravest concern to the charities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the matter but the hearing efforts were the basis of an appeal to the Illinois General Assembly to overturn the effect of the decision by changing the law. My co-counsel was James A. Velde, of Gardner, Carton, Douglas, Chilgren and Waude, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Il., 60 Other counsel involved for the utiliti j in, Opposing counsel were the Illinois Attorney General, State of Illinois Building, 1 oom 900, Chicago, pe I1l., 60601 = = b7C Hartunian, 4) West Side Organization vs. Centennial Laundry Company. I represented the West Side Organization, which was an unincorporated community association whose Board of Directors consisted of persons active on the west side of the city of Chicago, as well as various church figures throught the Chicago community. WSO had participated in organizing a protest against Centennial Laundry's discriminatory hiring practices. Centennial Laundry obtained an injunction