denying remedy under an unjust enrichment theory when a contract specifically governed the dispute and allowed for legal remedies
How later courts described this case
- denying remedy under an unjust enrichment theory when a contract specifically governed the dispute and allowed for legal remedies
- “[I]nsurance proceeds are paid directly to the designated beneficiary and therefore generally do not pass through probate.”
- “[T]he issues of whether a contract existed, the parties’ intent in forming it, and its terms are all questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.”
- whether a defendant was insane at the time of an offense is a finding of fact which will not be overturned unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority’s analysis on all issues except the issue related to the electronic monitoring device. I agree with the majority that this defendant has forfeited the electronic monitoring device issue and also failed to meet her burden of proof as to plain error.
Here, the presence of the electronic monitoring device was brought to the court’s attention after the close of the evidence and defendant requested a curative instruction for the jury. After receiving the curative instruction, the defense did not raise the issue in a posttrial motion. Consequently, we can only review this claim of error if defendant can establish plain error. Since the evidence was not closely balanced and defendant received a curative instruction to insure the fairness of the proceedings, I join the majority’s conclusion that plain error does not exist.
Once the majority determined that no error occurred, I respectfully suggest that any discussion of whether an electronic monitoring device “may be similar to shackles” is unnecessary. Consequently, I agree with the State that this is a “faux shackling issue.” Therefore, I do not adopt the views of the majority on this issue beyond the conclusion that the electronic monitor issue has been forfeited by the defense. For this reason, I specially concur.