King Poor concentrates on trial and appellate practice involving business and commercial litigation.
He has appeared before the United States Supreme Court three times; presenting oral argument in one case (Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (court settles nationwide split of authority as to bankruptcy rule deadlines) and has served as second chair for two others: United States v. Goodman, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (representing a group of states, Court limits reach of American With Disabilities Act in state prison litigation) and Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989) (court rules in client’s favor, holding that for federal habeas state court must expressly rely on waiver of constitutional right). He has also authored two petitions for certiorari that the Supreme Court has granted.
Overall, Mr. Poor has also participated in over 75 appeals including those in the areas of contract disputes, class action defense, employment, arbitration, creditors' rights and bankruptcy, trusts and estates and regulatory matters, as well as pro bono criminal and habeas cases. He has presented numerous appellate arguments, including those before United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Supreme Courts of Illinois and Delaware, and the Illinois Appellate Court. This experience includes:
- NECA-IBEW Rockford Union v. A&A Drug Co., 736 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2013) (affirms dismissal against client ruling that plaintiff ratified unsigned contract requiring arbitration).
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2013) (client’s right to challenge search warrant unconstitutionally restricted).
- Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 688 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (court reverses class action certification against client arising from special education claims).
- Securities and Exchange Com'n v. Wealth Mgt. LLC, 628 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2010) (court affirms plan of distribution proposed by client as receiver).
- Herlehy v. Marie V. Bistersky Trust, 407 III. App. 3d 878 (1st Dist. 2010) (court validates charitable trust for client's benefit).
- Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2007) (court reverses and grants habeas relief to client for resentencing).
- United States v. Ortiz, 431 F. 3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2005) (court overturns client’s 20-year sentence arising from uncharged conduct at sentencing).
- Alhambra-Grantfork Tel. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Com’n, 358 Ill. App. 3d 818 (5th Dist. 2005) (court affirms agency decision for client stemming from wireless interconnection charges).
- Smurfit Newsprint v. Southeast Paper, 368 F. 3d 944 (7th Cir. 2004) (court reverses in favor of client, holding that state insurance law does not apply to contractual indemnity involving the sale of a paper mill).
- Bruemmer v. Compaq Computer, 329 Ill. App. 3d 755 (1st Dist. 2002) (court affirms dismissal of class action against client involving computer warranties).
- Abrams v. Unity Mutual, 237 F. 3d 862 (7th Cir. 2001) (Statute of Frauds barred unjust enrichment action against client related to insurance sales program).
In trial court practice, Mr. Poor has represented clients in disputes ranging from contract issues, business torts, real estate, franchises, and class action defense. His bankruptcy and creditors rights’ practice includes litigation involving the rights of secured creditors as well as fraudulent transfer and preference actions. This experience includes:
- Represented European clients in prosecuting and defending claims involving international sales of goods and foreign law.
- Real Estate:
- Corus Bank N.A. v de Guardiola, 593 F. Supp.2d 991 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (court grants motion to abstain in favor of client in litigation over guaranty of real estate development).
- Represented major Chicago office buildings in lease disputes.
- City of Waukegan v. National Gypsum Co., 560 F. Supp. 2d 636 (N.D. Ill. 2008) and related cases (represented client in litigation and settlement of major Superfund case).
- Class Action Defense:
- Defended nationwide wireless carrier in consumer class action involving cellular telephone contracts; court dismisses all claims against client.
- Creditors Rights:
- In fraudulent transfer action, court grants client summary judgment and avoids transfers of commercial real estate.
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar
- U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas