Welch
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
8%
Reversal Rate
92%
Case History
12 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Adoption of M.W.
# In re Adoption of M.W., 2023 IL App (5th) 220791-U 1. Case citation and parties - In re Adoption of M.W., No. 5-22-0791 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Apr. 26, 2023) (Rule 23 order). - Petitioner-Appellee: Stacy Williams Welch (foster/adoptive parent). Proposed Intervenor-Appellant: Angela Webb (paternal grandmother). Intervenor-Appellee: Illinois DCFS. 2. Key legal issues - Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over Webb’s appeal from the denial of her motion for leave to intervene in a post-judgment adoption proceeding. - Timeliness of postjudgment motions and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303(a)(1); 735 ILCS 5/2-1203). 3. Holding/outcome - Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant’s postjudgment filing and notices of appeal were untimely; the appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 4. Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Rule 303(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the final judgment or, if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, within 30 days after the order disposing of the last such motion. Section 2-1203(a) allows a motion to reconsider in nonjury civil cases within 30 days of judgment. - Here the adoption judgment was entered June 9, 2022; Webb’s petition to intervene was denied July 18, 2022. Webb did not file a postjudgment motion within 30 days of that denial; her “motion to intervene” seeking reconsideration was filed 70 days later (Sept. 26, 2022). The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to act on that late filing and its subsequent order was void. A void order cannot reset appeal deadlines. Webb’s notices of appeal (Oct. 27 and Dec. 7 filings) were thus untimely measured from the July 18 order. - The court reiterated that pro se litigants get no special leniency regarding procedural deadlines. 5. Practice implications - Strictly observe the 30‑day windows for postjudgment motions (735 ILCS 5/2‑1203) and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303). Late postjudgment motions do not toll appeal deadlines and any trial-court action on untimely motions is void and cannot salvage an appeal. - When seeking to intervene after a final judgment, act promptly; intervention after final decree is allowed only in limited circumstances and timeliness is critical. - Do not rely on clerks’ or trial-court informal statements to preserve appellate rights; ensure a timely, correctly denominated postjudgment motion or notice of appeal is filed and comply with appellate filing/formalities (docketing statement, fees). - Pro se status does not excuse missed procedural deadlines.
In re Marriage of Davis
1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Davis, 2023 IL App (5th) 210410‑U. - Petitioner‑Appellee: Carol A. Davis. Respondent‑Appellant: William D. Davis. (Fifth District; judgment filed Apr. 10, 2023; Justice Welch delivered the judgment; Justice Cates dissented.) 2. Key legal issues - Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing the respondent’s petition to modify/terminate maintenance as a discovery sanction. - Whether the sanction was imposed sua sponte or in response to a motion for sanctions. - Whether the court’s sanction order satisfied Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002) and contained adequate specificity. - Whether the court’s finding that the respondent’s discovery conduct was sanctionable was proper where counsel (not the client) was primarily responsible for delays. 3. Holding / outcome - Affirmed. The appellate court held the dismissal sanction was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court acted on the petitioner’s motion (not sua sponte), its ruling met Rule 219(c) specificity requirements, and the record supported a finding of sanctionable discovery conduct warranting dismissal of the respondent’s petition. 4. Significant legal reasoning - The court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard to discovery sanctions and emphasized trial courts’ broad latitude to enforce discovery rules. The record showed prolonged, repeated discovery failures over more than two years (failure to comply with an order to compel, late/deficient responses, disputes over subpoenas and privilege logs, multiple hearings and continuances). - The appellate court rejected the appellant’s contention that the sanction was improper because delays were attributable to his counsel, noting counsel’s failures may be imputed to the client and do not preclude sanctions where the record demonstrates systemic noncompliance. - The court found the sanction was entered in response to the petitioner’s motion for sanctions, not sua sponte, and that the trial court’s docket entries and orders furnished sufficient factual findings to satisfy Rule 219(c). 5. Practice implications - Courts will impose severe sanctions, including dismissal of relief‑seeking pleadings, for persistent discovery noncompliance—even when blame is placed on counsel. - Counsel must monitor and comply with discovery orders, promptly cure deficiencies, and preserve a detailed record of efforts to comply; reliance on inadvertent calendaring or paralegal error is a weak defense. - When facing discovery sanctions, move promptly to show compliance, present evidence excusing delay, and seek relief under the appropriate procedural mechanisms; appellate relief is limited absent clear abuse of discretion. - Use clear, timely privilege logs and protective orders when third‑party subpoenas are involved, and litigate quash/compel issues early to avoid cumulative sanctions risk.
Other 5th District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Welch's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Welch has an overall affirm rate of 8% across 12 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Welch serve in?
Welch serves in the Illinois 5th District Appellate Court.
How often are Welch's decisions reversed on appeal?
Welch has a 92% reversal rate, with 11 decisions reversed out of 12 total cases.
Need Strategic Insights for Your Appeal?
Get deeper analytics, outcome forecasts, and compare judges side-by-side with a Professional subscription.
Upgrade to Professional