Mitchell Paul Hedrick

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Associate

  Firm Name

  Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen Professional Corporation
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Significant Cases: Menold Construction, Inc. v. Prather - Peoria County Circuit Court (2014) Represented construction
  restoration contractor at bench trial in breach of contract action. Defendant refused to pay under the terms of a written contract for water damage remediation
  repair services. At trial, Defendant argued the contractor had not performed its services in a workmanlike manner. Defendant also argued the contract was void as against public policy because 1) the contractor used unreasonable pricing lists established by a 3rd party vendor
  2) the contractor conspired with competitors in the area to set the price of construction services in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act. The Court found the contractor had performed its services in a workmanlike manner. The Court further found that the use of the 3rd party vendor pricing list was st
  ard in the industry
  reasonable. The Court finally found that there was no conspiracy or agreement between the contractor
  its competitors to set prices for construction services
  therefore no violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act. The Court entered judgment in the contractor's favor
  awarded damages for the amount invoiced, pre-suit interest, court costs,
  reasonable attorneys fees.
  Vesoulis v. Massey Roofing, Inc. - Peoria County Circuit Court (2014) Plaintiff homeowner hired Massey Roofing to install a rubber membrane flat roof on a portion of the historic John W. Gift Mansion in Peoria, Illinois. Plaintiff alleged Massey Roofing negligently installed the flat roof, resulting in significant water damage to the interior of the home. Massey Roofing employees testified that the company performed two water leakage tests at the request of the homeowner
  determined the sources of the leak were a skylight
  door frame installed by a different contractor after Massey Roofing's work was complete. Plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that the skylight
  door frame were outside the scope of Massey Roofing's contract. Plaintiff also admitted the water leakage tests showed absolutely no defects in the work Massey Roofing performed. The trier of fact returned a verdict for Massey Roofing, finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove Massey Roofing breached the duty of workmanlike performance or that Massey Roofing's work was the cause of the damage to Plaintiff's home. The Court entered judgment in Massey Roofing's favor
  awarded no damages to the Plaintiff.