BlogLine

When the appellate clock starts ticking: Electronic dockets, stamps and a harsh result

12/22/25

By: Donald Patrick Eckler

A recent decision from the Illinois Appellate Court, First District reinforces the simple but unforgiving truth for litigants seeking to appeal: when a judgment order appears on the electronic docket, the clock starts, and a missing date or stamp will not save a late notice of appeal. Practitioners must actively monitor orders rather than wait for perfect clerical form.

In Carr v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 241639, the estate of a 13-year-old who died after a police chase challenged a jury verdict in favor of the City. The allegations were serious. The teen was a passenger in a van that fled a traffic stop. The pursuit continued over wet roads until the van struck a fire hydrant and parked vehicles, ejecting him. He was pinned beneath another vehicle and died five days later. The estate alleged the officers engaged in willful and wanton conduct and that their actions caused his death. At trial, the issues centered on whether the pursuing officer’s conduct rose to that level and whether it proximately caused the injury, in light of governmental immunity. The jury returned a verdict for the City.

Post trial, the estate timely moved for a new trial, arguing evidentiary error and confusing jury instructions. The motion was denied in a written order signed July 12, 2024, and later bearing that date on its face. The estate filed its notice of appeal on August 14, 2024. The City moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction, asserting that the notice was filed after the 30-day deadline. Both parties agreed on the dates of signing and filing of the notice. They disagreed on when the order was entered for purposes of triggering the appeal period.

The dispute turned on the absence of a clerk’s file stamp on the signed order when it appeared on the docket. The estate argued the order was not filed until the stamp was added weeks later, on the same day the notice of appeal was accepted. The court rejected that view. It held that posting the signed order to the electronic docket on July 12 constituted filing. It noted that the parties accessed the order through the docket and that actual notice or a file stamp was not required. The clerk’s later action correcting the stamp was deemed a ministerial step that did not alter the entry date. The notice of appeal was therefore untimely, and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

For practitioners in Illinois, the lesson is clear. Electronic availability of a signed order is enough to trigger the timeline for appeal. Waiting for a stamp or email notice is risky. Firms should build in procedures to check electronic dockets frequently, especially when rulings are expected.

Additionally, when filing a notice of appeal through the electronic system, ensure the date of the order appealed from is accurate. An incorrect future date caused the first attempted filing here to be rejected, adding avoidable delay. Even a favorable verdict can become vulnerable if procedural requirements are overlooked. The safest path is early docket review, prompt filings and careful verification that the form and timing of appellate documents match the rules.

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.