Settlement Case Analysis

Listen to this article

The strongest argument that the employees had in this case is the one they failed to raise in the district court, and thus, waived.

Illinois, like Wisconsin, requires that, when a city is a party to a lawsuit, the city council must approve any settlement before it can be enforced against it.

As a result, Wisconsin precedent holds that plaintiffs suing cities can back out until the city council approves any settlement. Kocinski v. The Home Insurance Co., 154 Wis.2d 56, 452 N.W.2d 360 (1990).

In Kocinski, the plaintiff brought a personal injury suit against the City of Milwaukee and assorted individual defendants.

	Related Article No reneging on settlement

The parties reached a settlement, which the Supreme Court found complied with sec. 807.05. Id., 452 N.W.2d at 366.

Nevertheless, applying standard contract law, the court held that it could not be enforced against the plaintiff, because the plaintiff revoked her consent to the settlement prior to the City Council approving it.

As a result, the decision in the case at bar can effectively be limited in future cases to those in which the plaintiff does not rebuke the settlement until after the defendant’s city council approves it.

Where the plaintiff acts before the city council can act (as one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar did), this case is easily distinguishable, provided the correct argument is made.

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.