Are the IPI Instructions on Construction Negligence an Accurate Statement of Illinois Law?
|
|
- Solomon Logan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Feature Article Judge Donald J. O Brien, Jr. (ret.) * Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago Are the IPI Instructions on Construction Negligence an Accurate Statement of Illinois Law? The current version of the IPI series jury instructions does not accurately reflect the language of the Restatement (Second) of Torts at Section 414. Further, the current version of the IPI series does not accurately reflect Illinois case law. This paper will explore the discrepancies between the jury instructions, Restatement (Second) of Torts at Section 414, and Illinois case law. The series of the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (Instructions) is based on Restatement (Second) of Torts (Restatement), 414. Section 414 of the Restatement reads as follows: One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. Comment a. If the employer of an independent contractor retains control over the operative detail of doing any part of the work, he is subject to liability for the negligence of the employees of the contractor engaged therein, under the rules of that part of the law of Agency which deals with the relation of master and servant. The employer, may, however, retain a control less than that which is necessary to subject him to liability as master. He may retain only the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done, or to forbid its being done in a manner likely to be dangerous to himself or others. Such a supervisory control may not subject him to liability under the principles of Agency, but he may be liable under the rule stated in this Section unless he exercises his supervisory control with reasonable care so as to prevent the work which he has ordered to be done from causing injury to others. Comment b. The rule stated in this Section is usually, though not exclusively, applicable when a principal contractor entrusts a part of the work to subcontractors, but himself or through a foreman superintends the entire job. In such a situation, the principal contractor is subject to liability if he fails to prevent the subcontractors from doing even the details of the work in a way unreasonably dangerous to others, if he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should know that the subcontractors work is being so done, and has the opportunity to prevent it by exercising the power of control which he has retained in himself. So, too, he is subject to liability if he knows or should know that the subcontractors have carelessly done their work in such a way as to create a dangerous condition, and fails to exercise reasonable care either to remedy it himself or by the exercise of his control cause the subcontractor to do so. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 1
2 Comment c. In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way. Restatement (Second) of Torts 414 (2015 Lexis). IPI Series Pattern Jury Instructions At the same time, the series of the Instructions reads as follows: Construction Negligence Work Entrusted To Another A[n] [owner] [contractor] [other] who entrusts work to a [subcontractor] [contractor] [other] can be liable for injuries resulting from the work if the [owner] [contractor] [other] retained some control over the safety of the work and the injuries were proximately caused by the [owner s] [contractor s] [other s] failure to exercise that control with ordinary care Construction Negligence Duty A party who retained some control over the safety of the work has a duty to exercise that control with ordinary care Construction Negligence Issues Made by the Pleadings/Burden of Proof Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendant[s]. In order to recover damages, the plaintiff has the burden of proving: 1. [The defendant] [Defendants,, and ] retained some control over the safety of the work; 2. Defendant[s] [acted] [or] [failed to act] in one or more of the following ways: a. ; or b. ; or c. ; IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 2
3 and in so [acting] [or] [failing to act], was [were] negligent in the manner in which it [exercised] [or] [failed to exercise] its control. 3. Plaintiff [name] was injured; and 4. [The defendant s] [Defendants,, or ] negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff s injuries. [You are to consider these propositions as to each defendant separately.] If you find that any of these propositions has not been proven as to [the defendant] [any one] [or more] [or all] [of the defendants], then your verdict should be for [the] [that] [those] defendant[s]. On the other hand, if you find that all of these propositions have been proven as to [the defendant] [any one] [or more] [or all] [of the defendants], then you must consider defendant[ s] [s ] claim[s] that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. As to [that] [those] claim[s], defendant[s] has the burden of proving: A. Plaintiff [name] acted or failed to act in one or more of the following ways: 1. ; or 2. ; or 3..; and in so [acting] [or] [failing to act] was negligent, and B. Plaintiff s negligence was a proximate cause of [his injury] [and] [damage to his property]. If you find that plaintiff has proven all the propositions required of [him] [her], and the defendant[s] ha[s][ve] not proven all of the propositions required of the defendant[s], then your verdict should be for the plaintiff as to [that] [those] defendant[s] and you will not reduce plaintiff s damages. If you find that defendant[s] [has] [have] proven all of the propositions required of [the] [those] defendant[s], and if you find that the plaintiff s contributory negligence was greater than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for [that] [those] defendant[s]. If you find that defendant[s] [has] [have] proven all of the propositions required of [the] [those] defendant[s], and if you find that the plaintiff s contributory negligence was less than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff as to [that] [those] defendant[s] and you will reduce the plaintiff s damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 3
4 55.04 Construction Negligence More Than One Person Having Control One or more persons may have some control over the safety of the work. Which person or persons had some control over the safety of the work under the particular facts of this case is for you to decide. Elements of Construction Negligence Action Under Section 414 Based on the Restatement at Section 414, there are certain elements of the cause of action which must be reflected in the jury instructions. These elements are: 1. Existence of relationship there must be a relationship between the employer of the independent contractor and the independent contractor. 2. Retention of some degree of control over part of the work the employer of the independent contractor must have maintained some degree of control over any part of the work by retaining sufficient control over: a. The manner, means and methods of the work being done; or b. The operative details of the work being done. 3. Duty of reasonable care the employer must owe a duty to others, and must be found to have breached the duty by failing to exercise reasonable care with respect to the exercise of its retention of some degree of control over any part of the work. Comment a vicarious liability (law of agency) The first half of Comment a to section 414 provides for vicarious liability of the employer for the conduct of the independent contractor. The employer of the independent contractor is subject to liability for the negligence of the employees of the independent contractor retained by the employer under agency principles. The employer may be liable for retention of some degree of control which can be less than that which is necessary to subject the employer to liability as the master. Comment c. defines the degree of retained control that the employer of the independent contractor must exercise to subject the employer of the independent contractor to vicarious liability based on respondeat superior or the laws of agency. In other words, the employer is subject to liability for damages if: a. The employer retains at least some degree of control over the manner, means, and methods of the work being done; and; and IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 4
5 b. There exists the retention of a right of supervision by the employer of the subcontractor such that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way. Comment b direct liability The second theory of liability under section 414 is the theory of direct liability. Under most circumstances, direct liability in a constructive negligence context applies when the principal contractor (general contractor) entrusts a part of the work to subcontractors and superintends the entire job. Under these circumstances, the principal contractor is subject to liability if the principal contractor: a. fails to prevent subcontractors from doing even the details of the work in a manner unreasonably dangerous to others; and b. if the principal contractor knew or should have known that the subcontractor s work was being done in an unreasonably dangerous manner; and c. had the opportunity to prevent the risk of harm by exercising the power of control which the principal contractor had retained in itself. In addition, the principal contractor is subject to liability if: d. the principal contractor knew or should have known that the subcontractors carelessly performed their work as to create a dangerous condition; and e. failed to exercise reasonable care either to remedy the dangerous condition, or, through the exercise of the principal contractor s control, caused the subcontractor to remedy the dangerous condition. The IPI instructions do not require that the plaintiff prove actual or constructive knowledge of the principal contractor under a direct liability theory. However, Comment b, which defines the theory of direct liability under Section 414, clearly requires that the plaintiff prove actual or constructive knowledge of the principal contractor before the principal contractor may be subject to liability. (For a discussion of Restatement Section 414 as to Comments a, b, and c, see Cochran v. George Sollitt Constr. Co., 358 Ill. App. 3d 865, (1st Dist. 2005), and Calderon v. Residential Homes of America, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 333, (1st Dist. 2008). Discussion of Illinois Case Law As of the writing of this paper, five cases have addressed the issue of whether the IPI series accurately states Illinois law. The first case to address the issue was Jones v. DHR Cambridge Homes, 381 Ill. App. 3d 18 (1st Dist. 2008), which addressed the giving of IPI 55.01, 55.02, and The court found that the IPI accurately states Illinois law. Jones was a vicarious liability case which invokes Comments a. and c. of the Restatement. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 5
6 The next case to address the issue was Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc., 397 Ill. App. 3d 13 (1st Dist. 2009). This was a direct liability case, and the court addressed IPI 55.01, 55.02, and but found that the IPI accurately stated Illinois law involving a direct liability case which invokes Comments a and b. The next case to address the issue was Calloway v. Bovis Lend Lease, 2013 IL App (1st) , wherein the court found that IPI series accurately states Illinois law. The case involved both direct and vicarious liability, and the court addressed Restatement (Second) Comments a, b, and c. The next case was Ramirez v. FCL Builders, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) This case involved both vicarious and direct liability. The court addressed IPI and found that was not a correct statement of Illinois law, the reasons being that the Restatement requires that one person be in control of the work by the use of the phrase one who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who maintains the control of any part of the work. Ramirez, 2014 IL App (1st) , 120. IPI does not use the control, but rather, some control, and because the jury is not instructed as to the amount of control required, a jury could find that minimal control over safety is sufficient. The court also found that IPI does not contain an explanation of retained control, and does not define what conduct constitutes control. The court found that IPI was not an accurate statement of Illinois law, but did not reverse because they found that the instruction resulted in no serious prejudice to the defendant. Id The final case was Lee v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) , which involved both vicarious and direct liability. The court addressed IPI and adopted the Ramirez decision, and held that IPI does not accurately state Illinois law. In regards to Jones, I do not believe that it has any precedential value because the issue before the court was whether Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 303 (1st Dist. 2004), rendered the IPI series inaccurate. In Jones, the parties and the court assumed the IPI series to be an accurate statement of law, and only made a determination as to whether Martens changed the accuracy of The court found that it did not. Diaz was a direct liability case. Comment b establishes two sets of circumstances that create direct liability. The first is when the subcontractors do their work in a dangerous manner and second is where the subcontractor creates a dangerous condition, keeping in mind that a direct liability case invokes the second half of Comment a and Comment b. Comment b requires that the contracting entity have actual or constructive knowledge that the subcontractor is doing its work in a manner unreasonably dangerous to others and/or the contracting entity knew or should know that subcontractor has created a dangerous condition. The court found that the IPI accurately stated Illinois law; yet, if one looks at (Construction Negligence Issues Made By The Pleadings/Burden of Proof), there is no requirement that plaintiff prove actual or constructive knowledge of the employing defendant. However, the Restatement requires actual or constructive knowledge in the case of direct liability. The case law also requires actual or constructive knowledge in a direct liability case. (See O Gorman v. Paschen, 2015 IL App (1st) , 100; see also Cochran, 358 Ill. App. 3d at ; Lee, 2014 IL App (1st) , 102; Calderon, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 347. As for 55.01, that instruction is flawed because it does not define the amount of control required, nor does it define what conduct constitutes control. Further, the instruction does not incorporate Comment c, which points out certain actions by the contracting party that do not constitute control s biggest flaw is that it does not require the degree of control necessary, i.e., where the subcontractor is not free to do the work in his own way only requires some control, which is not accurate and not consistent with the Restatement. Therefore, is not an accurate statement of Illinois law, nor is it consistent with the Restatement. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 6
7 A recent Second District case, Hiatt v. Western Plastics, Inc., 2014 IL App (2d) , has narrowed the scope of control. Hiatt held that the control of the work must extend to the safety of the work and must include the safety of the work being done by the injured employee. A broad right of control is not enough, but the control must extend to the work being done by the injured employee. As to vicarious liability, IPI 55.01, 55.02, 55.03, and are not correct statements of the law in another regard. Because a breach of due care by the hiring entity must proximately cause the injuries, the control sufficient to impose liability must be specific to that aspect of the work in which plaintiff is involved. Put another way, in order to have a proximate nexus, the control must be specific to plaintiff s work. Two examples of how IPI 55.01, 55.02, 55.03, and would lead to an incorrect result are as follows: (a) assume the hiring entity retains sufficient control over the carpentry work, but not over the plumbing work, and plaintiff is doing plumbing when injured; (b) assume the hiring entity has retained sufficient control over all of the foundation work, but has not retained sufficient control over the roofing work, and plaintiff is injured while working on the roof. In each of the two examples, the hiring entity would have sufficient control over some, but not all, of the work. Yet, under IPI 55.01, 55.02, 55.03, and 55.04, the hiring entity would be subject to liability because IPI 55.01, 55.02, 55.03, and do not restrict themselves to control over the work that plaintiff is doing. Therefore, the hiring entity, while having the requisite control over some of the work, could then be subject to liability under IPI because the IPI does not restrict itself to control over the work plaintiff is doing, but just talks about control over the safety of the work. Because there must be a proximate nexus between the requisite control and the injuries, the current IPI does away with the requisite nexus by allowing a hiring entity to become liable for the requisite control that has no proximate nexus to the injuries. In regard to the use of the phrase some control over the safety of the work in IPI 55.02, 55.03, and 55.04, I do not believe this statement is consistent with 414 of the Restatement. The Restatement does not use the term safety of the work, but uses the term control of the work. All of the references to control are directed to the work and not the safety of the work. An example of how the phrase some control over the safety of the work could lead to an incorrect result is as follows: Assume the general contractor has a supervisor on the job whose sole function was to note safety violations, and bring them to the attention of the subcontractor. Said supervisor s job could be construed as having some control over the safety of the work, even though the supervisor would have no control over the details of the work, and, therefore, could not forbid the work being done, nor could he correct a dangerous condition or cause the subcontractor to correct the same. Thus, under the current IPI series, the general contractor would be subject to liability, while under the Restatement 414 he would not be subject to liability. Proposed Jury Instructions The author proposes the following instructions which the author believes more accurately reflect the Restatement and the Illinois case law than the existing IPI series: Liability of One who Employs an Independent Contractor One who employs an independent contractor normally is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. However, if the employer of an independent contractor retains sufficient control over IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 7
8 the means and methods and the operative details of the independent contractor s work, he may subject himself to liability for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. He may also become liable if he retains sufficient control to supervise the work done by the independent contractor and knows or should know that the work is being done in a dangerous manner or in such a way as to create a dangerous condition and fails to exercise his control in such a manner to remedy the dangerous condition or cause the subcontractor to do so, and/or that he fails to prevent the work being done in a dangerous manner, said failures proximately causing injuries Construction Negligence Duty A party who retains sufficient control over the work being done by the plaintiff has a duty to exercise that control with ordinary care Retains Sufficient Control When I used the term retains sufficient control, I mean that the [owner] [contractor] [other] must have maintained some degree of control over the manner, means and methods and/or the operative details of the work being done by the plaintiff. Alternatively the [owner] [contractor] [other] may have retained sufficient control if he has supervisory control that allows him to forbid the work being done in a dangerous manner; if he knows or should know that the work is being so done; or if he knows or should know that the work has been done in such a way as to create a dangerous condition and he fails to remedy the dangerous condition himself or cause the subcontractor to do so What is not Sufficient Control For purposes of making the [owner] [contractor] [other] liable for the acts or omissions of the subcontractor: The [owner] [contractor] [other] does not have sufficient control if he merely: (a) has a general right to order the work stopped or resumed; and/or (b) a general right to inspect the progress of the work; and/or (c) a general right to receive reports on the work being done; and/or (d) a general right to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed; and/or (e) a general right to prescribe alterations and deviations Construction Negligence Issues made by the Pleadings/Burden of Proof In the case of vicarious liability, under Restatement Comments a. and c., paragraph 1 should read: [The defendant] [Defendants,, and ] retained sufficient control over the work being done by the plaintiff. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 8
9 In the case of direct liability under the last half of Restatement Comment a. and Comment b., paragraph 1 should read the same as paragraph 1 above. In the case of direct liability, paragraph 2 should read: The defendant knew or by the exercise of reasonable care [should know that the subcontractor was doing the work in a way unnecessarily dangerous to others] [or knew or should know that the subcontractors have carelessly done their work in such a way as to create a dangerous condition. Then continue with numbers 2 through 4 and the rest of IPI as presently set out in IPI Construction Negligence More than One Person Having Sufficient Control One or more persons may have sufficient control over the work, which person or persons had sufficient control over the work under the particular facts of this case is for you to decide. It is noteworthy that the last time the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the Restatement (Second) of Torts, 414, was in 1965, in Larson v. Commonwealth Edison, 33 Ill. 2d 316 (1965), in the context of a Structural Work Act case (Said Act was subsequently repealed.)further, the Supreme Court has never addressed the accuracy of the IPI series. Conclusion It is the author s hope that the Illinois Supreme Court eventually addresses the accuracy of the IPI series construction negligence jury instructions. Indeed, the jury instructions need to be amended to reconcile the inconsistencies discussed in this paper. The proposed IPI series jury instructions set forth in this paper accurately reflect the law of construction negligence and provide a framework for further discussion. About the Author Judge Donald J. O Brien, Jr., B.S., graduated from Northwestern University School of Law, 1963, J.D. Judge O Brien was principal in the firm of O Brien, Redding and Hyde for 27 years. He has 27 years of experience as a trial lawyer, including arguing and trying cases in both the state and federal courts and the appellate level in both the state and federal courts. Appointed Cook County Circuit Court Judge, 1990; assigned 1991 to Law Division hearing major personal injury cases and contract disputes. Elected to Cook County Circuit Court for full six-year term in November As an active trial lawyer, Judge O Brien tried 107 cases to verdict. As a Presiding Judge, he presided over approximately 320 cases that went to verdict before a jury. * The author wishes to thank colleague and friend Chuck Rantis for his insight and input during the preparation of this article. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 9
10 About the IDC The Illinois Association Defense Trial Counsel (IDC) is the premier association of attorneys in Illinois who devote a substantial portion their practice to the representation of business, corporate, insurance, professional and other individual defendants in civil litigation. For more information on the IDC, visit us on the web at or contact us at PO Box 588, Rochester, IL , , , idc@iadtc.org. IDC Quarterly Volume 26, Number 1 ( ) Page 10
Defining the Retained Control Exception: An Update on 414
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 19, Number 3 (19.3.30) Feature Article By: Kingshuk K. Roy Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd.
More informationEssentials of Demonstrative Evidence
Feature Article Hon. Donald J. O Brien, Jr. (Ret.) Charles P. Rantis Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence Presentation of evidence at trial is constantly evolving. In this
More informationAn Outside Bet: Reduction in the Amount of Recovery in Medical Malpractice Cases
Civil Practice and Procedure Donald Patrick Eckler and Matthew A. Reddy Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago An Outside Bet: Reduction in the Amount of Recovery in Medical Malpractice Cases Defense practitioners
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Tamara B. Goorevitz Franklin & Prokopik, P.C. 2 North Charles Street Suite 600 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 230 3625 Email: tgoorevitz@fandpnet.com
More informationConstruction Negligence: Significant Developments Which Affect and Shape the Tort
Feature Article David B. Mueller and Brian A. Metcalf Cassidy & Mueller, P.C., Peoria Construction Negligence: Significant Developments Which Affect and Shape the Tort Construction negligence claims coexisted
More informationDo Consumers Have Private Remedies for Violations of the Reporting Requirements Under the Rules of the Consumer Product Safety Act?
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 19, Number 4 (19.4.50) Product Liability By: James W. Ozog and Staci A. Williamson* Wiedner
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 3 (24.3.
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 3 (24.3.12) Evidence and Practice Tips Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller
More informationSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Nicholas C. Grant Ebeltoft. Sickler. Kolling. Grosz. Bouray. PLLC PO Box 1598 Dickinson, ND 58602 Tel: (701) 225-5297 Email: ngrant@eskgb.com www.eskgb.com
More informationDon t Forget the Immunity Offered by the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 21, Number 1 (21.1.30) Property Insurance By: Tracy E. Stevenson Robbins, Salomon & Patt,
More informationILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER IV STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION. Effective February 14, 1995, the Illinois Structural Work Act was repealed.
If you have questions or would like further information regarding the Structural Work Act, please contact: Larry Kowalczyk 312-540-7616 lkowalczyk@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success Driven. www.querrey.com
More informationThree Recent Appellate Court Jurisdictional Rulings Should Give Practitioners Pause When Filing Reviews
Workers Compensation Report Brad A. Elward, Brad A. Antonacci and Dana Hughes Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Three Recent Appellate Court Jurisdictional Rulings Should Give Practitioners
More informationEMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HIRING, SUPERVISION OR RETENTION 1 OF AN EMPLOYEE.
Page 1 of 7 SUPERVISION OR RETENTION 1 OF AN EMPLOYEE. The (state issue number) reads: Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the negligence 2 of the defendant in [hiring] [supervising] [retaining] (state
More informationAdmissibility of Statements under Illinois Rule of Evidence 408: Control Solutions, LLC v. Elecsys
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 4 (24.4.21) Evidence and Practice Tips Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller
More informationIndiana Rejoins Minority Permitting Negligent Hiring Claims Even Where Respondeat Superior is Admitted
www.pavlacklawfirm.com September 30 2016 by: Colin E. Flora Associate Civil Litigation Attorney Indiana Rejoins Minority Permitting Negligent Hiring Claims Even Where Respondeat Superior is Admitted This
More informationClash of the Titans: The Interaction of the Wrongful Death Act, Statute of Repose, Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule
Medical Malpractice Update Edna L. McLain and Zeke N. Katz HeplerBroom LLC, Chicago Clash of the Titans: The Interaction of the Wrongful Death Act, Statute of Repose, Statute of Limitations and the Discovery
More informationDual Sole Proximate Causes: Asserting an Effective Oxymoronic Defense
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 20, Number 4 (20.4.22) Feature Article By Lindsay Drecoll Brown Cassiday Schade LLP Dual
More informationAppellate Court Addresses Issue of First Impression Concerning Apparent Agency, Consent Forms and a Non-English Speaking Patient
Health Law Roger R. Clayton, Mark D. Hansen and J. Matthew Thompson Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Appellate Court Addresses Issue of First Impression Concerning Apparent Agency, Consent
More informationProduct Liability Case Evaluation and Trial Strategy Considerations
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 22, Number 4 (22.4.5) Feature Article By: Charles P. Rantis Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago
More informationManifestation Dates: The Moving Target of Repetitive Trauma Cases
Feature Article R. Mark Cosimini Rusin & Maciorowski, Ltd., Champaign Manifestation Dates: The Moving Target of Repetitive Trauma Cases The Illinois Appellate Court Fifth District, Workers Compensation
More information2014 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 120682-U THIRD DIVISION APRIL 9, 2014 No. 1-12-0682 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Greg C. Wilkins Christopher A. McKinney Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP 470 Orleans Street P.O. Box 1751 Beaumont, TX 77704 Tel: (409) 838 6412 Email: gcw@obt.com
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Paul E. Scheidemantel Eric Shih Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226-3435 Phone: (313) 965-8310 Email: pscheidemantel@clarkhill.com
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
2014 IL 115997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket Nos. 115997, 116009 cons.) In re ESTATE OF PERRY C. POWELL (a/k/a Perry Smith, Jr.), a Disabled Person (Robert F. Harris, Cook County
More informationWilson v. Clark Its Use and its Ramifications
Feature Article Circuit Judge Donald J. O Brien, Jr. (Ret.) Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Charles P. Rantis Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago Wilson v. Clark Its Use and its Ramifications Expert witness
More informationIsn t Every Party Entitled to be Represented by its Own Attorney? Take Note of Gapinski v. Gujrati
Health Law Roger R. Clayton, Mark D. Hansen and J. Matthew Thompson Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Isn t Every Party Entitled to be Represented by its Own Attorney? Take Note of Gapinski
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AT LAW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION INJURED PERSON Plaintiff, v. RESPONSIBLE PARTY, and RESPONSIBLE PARTY Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES the Plaintiff,
More informationPremises Liability Exposure in Construction Injury Cases
Premises Liability Exposure in Construction Injury Cases By: David B. Mueller and Andrew D. Cassidy Cassidy & Mueller Peoria Since the demise of the Structural Work Act, considerable energy has been expended
More informationRecent Decisions. Borrowed Employee s Remedy Limited by Workers Compensation Act
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 22, Number 4 (22.4.23) Recent Decisions By: Stacy Dolan Fulco and Katherine K. Haussermann
More informationCustomer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory.
Customer (C) v. Businessman (B) Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory. Negligence requires a Breach of a Duty that Causes Damages. A. Duty B had a duty to drive as
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 3 ( ) Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice By: Edward J. Aucoin, Jr. Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered Chicago Illinois Supreme Court s Decision in York v. Rush a Mixed Blessing? My favorite adage has always been be careful what
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Mark A. Solheim Larson King, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 312 6500 Email: msolheim@larsonking.com
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 1, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00719-CV JOSE HERNANDEZ, Appellant V. SUN CRANE AND HOIST, INC.: JLB PARTNERS, L.P.; JLB
More informationDoes the Discovery Rule Apply to Claims Brought Under the Wrongful Death Act or Pursuant to the Survival Act?
Supreme Court Watch M. Elizabeth D. Kellett HeplerBroom LLC, Edwardsville Does the Discovery Rule Apply to Claims Brought Under the Wrongful Death Act or Pursuant to the Survival Act? Moon v. Rhode, No.
More informationWorkers Compensation: Never Pay Judgment Interest if You are Not Facing a Section 19(g) Judgment
Feature Article Brad A. Elward Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Workers Compensation: Never Pay Judgment Interest if You are Not Facing a Section 19(g) Judgment The past 18 months have seen
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Randall R. Adams Kevin M. Ceglowski Poyner Spruill LLP 130 S. Franklin St. Rocky Mount, NC 27804 Tel: (252) 972 7094 Email: rradams@poynerspruill.com
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH. ----oo0oo---- Celso Magana and Yolanda Magana, No Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
2009 UT 45 This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ----oo0oo---- Celso Magana and Yolanda Magana, No. 20080629 Plaintiffs
More informationThe Scope of the Sufficiently Close Relationship Test; How Porter v. Decatur Is Changing the Landscape of Relation Back
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 21, Number 1 (21.1.44) Medical Malpractice By: Dina L. Torrisi and Edna McLain HeplerBroom,
More informationBlumenthal v. Brewer: Supreme Court Rule 304(a) Finding Not Enough for Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Practice Corner Scott L. Howie Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago Blumenthal v. Brewer: Supreme Court Rule 304(a) Finding Not Enough for Appellate Jurisdiction An entire volume could be written
More informationSTATE OF MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Kevin L. Fritz Patrick E. Foppe Lashly & Baer, P.C. 714 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 436-8309 Email: klfritz@lashlybaer.com pfoppe@lashlybaer.com
More informationHow to Be Thankful When Settling a Wrongful Death Claim
Medical Malpractice Update Edna L. McLain and Tammera E. Banasek HeplerBroom LLC, Chicago How to Be Thankful When Settling a Wrongful Death Claim T is the season for celebration and giving thanks, and
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Bulduk v. Walgreen Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 150166 Appellate Court Caption SAIME SEBNEM BULDUK and ABDULLAH BULDUK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, an
More informationRecent Decisions COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 17, Number 3 (17.3.45) Recent Decisions By: Stacy Dolan Fulco* Cremer, Kopon, Shaughnessy
More informationSTATE OF INDIANA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF INDIANA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Phil L. Isenbarger Bingham McHale, LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 968 5389 E mail: pisenbarger@binghammchale.com
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More informationSTATE OF IDAHO TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF IDAHO TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Keely E. Duke Kevin J. Scanlan Kevin A. Griffiths Duke Scanlan & Hall, PLLC 1087 W. River St., Ste. 300 Boise, ID 83702 Tel: (208) 342-3310 Email: ked@dukescanlan.com
More informationFor the Record: Preserving Issues for Appeal
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 4 (24.4.9) Appellate Practice Corner Scott L. Howie Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session MELANIE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MATTHEW H. v. SHAVONNA RACHELLE WINDHAM, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Demar v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd., The et al Doc. 40 Case 1:05-cv-05093 Document 40 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Douglas Bagwell Robert Briggs Carr Allison 14231 Seaway Road Building 2000, Suite 2001 Gulfport, MS 39503 Tel: (228) 864 1060 Email: dbagwell@carrallison.com
More informationEvidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 1 (24.1.47) Evidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller
More information2017 IL App (1st)
2017 IL App (1st) 152397 SIXTH DIVISION FEBRUARY 17, 2017 No. 1-15-2397 MIRKO KRIVOKUCA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 13 L 7598 ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ORDER
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ALEX PIERSCIONEK, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. 14 CH 19131 ORDER Defendant, Illinois High School Association,
More informationKyles v. Celadon Trucking Servs.
Kyles v. Celadon Trucking Servs. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division October 19, 2015, Decided; October 19, 2015, Filed Case No. 6:15-cv-03193-MDH Reporter
More informationSTATE OF ALABAMA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF ALABAMA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Thomas L. Oliver Carr Allison 100 Vestavia Parkway Birmingham, AL 35216 Tel: (205) 822 2006 Email: toliver@carrallison.com www.carrallison.com A. Elements
More informationPublic Act : An Unconstitutional Violation of the Inviolate Right to Trial By Jury?
Feature Article Michael L. Resis and Britta Sahltrom SmithAmundsen LLC, Chicago Terry A. Fox Kelley Kronenberg, Chicago John D. Hackett Cassiday Schade LLP, Chicago Public Act 98-1132: An Unconstitutional
More informationSun Tzu, The Art of War
Know Thine Enemy: What is the plaintiff lawyer who is suing you thinking? Sun Tzu, The Art of War So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be put at risk even in a hundred
More informationRECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY
RECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY By: David H. Levitt * Hinshaw & Culbertson Chicago In 1986, the Illinois legislature enacted 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. That statute provided that defendants
More informationPresent: Koontz, Kinser, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Carrico and Lacy, S.JJ.
Present: Koontz, Kinser, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Carrico and Lacy, S.JJ. WINTERGREEN PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a WINTERGREEN RESORT OPINION BY v. Record No. 091378 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by John T. Pion Timothy Smith Lauren M. Despot Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith, P.C. 420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard 1500 One Gateway
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., ET AL.
[Cite as Holland v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 2008-Ohio-1487.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY ROBERT E. HOLLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 17-07-12 v. BOB EVANS FARMS,
More informationSTATE OF KANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF KANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Patrick K. McMonigle John F. Wilcox, Jr. Dysart Taylor Cotter McMonigle & Montemore, P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel: (816)
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, TIMOTHY YOUNG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of ALLEN
More informationBoard of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members
44.070 Board of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members of the Crime Victims Compensation Board as hereinafter
More informationSTATE OF DELAWARE TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF DELAWARE TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by James W. Semple Cooch and Taylor The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, Tenth Floor Wilmington DE, 19899 Tel: (302)984-3842 Email: jsemple@coochtaylor.com
More informationUsing Supreme Court Rule 219(e) to Discourage Abuse of Voluntary Dismissal Statute
Legal Ethics Gretchen Harris Sperry Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Chicago Using Supreme Court Rule 219(e) to Discourage Abuse of Voluntary Dismissal Statute In recognition of the principle that a plaintiff
More information4. Plaintiff, Valerie Battle-Dugger, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant
3. Plaintiff, Creighton Mims, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant herein in Chicago, Illinois. 4. Plaintiff, Valerie Battle-Dugger, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LISA BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 22, 2003 V No. 235475 Oakland Circuit Court BARTON-MALOW CO. and BARTON-MALOW LC No. 00-020107-NO ENTERPRISES, INC.,
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 2 ( ) Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice By: Edward J. Aucoin, Jr. Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered Chicago First District Explains Requirements for Claims of Fraudulent Concealment Under 735 5/13-215 and Reaffirms Requirements
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 10/26/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX AL KHOSH, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B268937 (Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AT LAW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS INJURED PERSON, Plaintiff, v. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Defendants. COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES the plaintiff, INJURED PERSON, by and
More informationNo. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT FRANKLIN P. FRIEDMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court THE FRANKLIN P. FRIEDMAN LIVING ) of Cook County, Illinois TRUST, individually
More informationThe First District Revisits Rule 304(a) Requirements and the Supreme Court Changes Citation Formats
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 21, Number 3 (21.3.32) Appellate Practice Corner By: Brad A. Elward Heyl, Royster, Voelker
More informationWaiver, Forfeiture, and Plain Error
Appellate Practice Corner Scott L. Howie Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago Waiver, Forfeiture, and Plain Error Our adversarial system of justice depends upon the competition between adversaries not
More information2017 DEC ii At! 10: 27
iled COURT OF APPEALS DIV I STATE OF WASHINGTOfi 2017 DEC ii At! 10: 27 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JOSHUA K. KNUTSON and NATASHA KNUTSON, and the marital community No. 75565-0-1
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ADAM KANE, JENNIFER KANE AND KANE FINISHING, LLC, D/B/A KANE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR FINISHING v. Appellants ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationHeadnote: Tina R. Hill v. Ricardo L. Scartascini, et al., No. 1997, September Term 1999.
Headnote: Tina R. Hill v. Ricardo L. Scartascini, et al., No. 1997, September Term 1999. TORTS - JOINT TORTFEASORS ACT - Under the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act, when a jury
More informationSTATE OF WYOMING TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF WYOMING TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Scott Ortiz Ryan Schwartz Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C. P.O. Box 10700 159 No. Wolcott, Suite 400 Casper, WY 82602 Tel: (307) 265-0700
More informationSettlement Apportionment and Setoff in Illinois
Feature Article Quinn P. Donnelly and Brian T. Henry Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago Settlement Apportionment and Setoff in Illinois During the course of a lawsuit, counsel for each party evaluates
More informationThe Problem of Liability under the Illinois Structural Work Act
DePaul Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1960 Article 12 The Problem of Liability under the Illinois Structural Work Act DePaul College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review
More informationTIMOTHY LEE, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE TIMOTHY LEE, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. M AND H ENTERPRISES, INC. dba MARTIN HARRIS CONSTRUCTION, a Nevada corporation, Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D L.T. No.: (27)
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC08-1689 FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D07-1153 L.T. No.: 0120551 (27) ANNA JANE JOHNSON, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gene Johnson,
More informationCase 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00270-DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION TINA L. WALLACE PLAINTIFF VS. CITY OF JACKSON,
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER June 8, 2007 CARVIE M. MASON, JR., ET AL.
Present: All the Justices AUGUSTA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Record No. 061339 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER June 8, 2007 CARVIE M. MASON, JR., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISA COUNTY Timothy
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANCES S. SCHOENHERR, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 30, 2003 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION December 23, 2003 9:05 a.m. v No. 238966 Macomb Circuit
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Defendants. Case No. 07-cv-296-DRH MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Hunter v. Amin et al Doc. 32 ELISHA HUNTER, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stanley Bell, deceased, v. Plaintiff, HETAL AMIN, M.D., et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More information1998 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.
1998 WL 748328 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois. Rosalind WARNELL and Suzette Wright, each individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
More informationROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
PRESENT: All the Justices ROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No. 012007 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. JUAN F. QUINTANILLA, Appellant V. BAXTER PAINTING, INC.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 1, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00685-CV JUAN F. QUINTANILLA, Appellant V. BAXTER PAINTING, INC., Appellee On Appeal from
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ July
More information2013 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
2013 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Patrick J. Sweeney Sweeney & Sheehan, P.C. 1515 Market Street Suite 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 563-9811 Email: patrick.sweeney@sweeneyfirm.com
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 93 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. THE MEDICAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. Opinion Delivered February 26, 2009 APPELLANT, VS. SHERRY CASTRO, Individually, and as parent and court-appointed
More informationDEBORAH FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, LLC, BUDGET SERVICES, INC., and FRANK S FLOOR CARE, Defendants NO. COA Filed: 6 September 2005
DEBORAH FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, LLC, BUDGET SERVICES, INC., and FRANK S FLOOR CARE, Defendants NO. COA04-1570 Filed: 6 September 2005 1. Appeal and Error--preservation of issues--failure to raise
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS XIN WU and NINA SHUE, Plaintiffs, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2011 and WILLIAM LANSAT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SOL-IL SU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 294250
More informationPursuant to Rule 50(b), Ala. R. Civ. Proc., Defendant, Mobile Infirmary Association,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2/9/2017 1:30 PM 02-CV-2012-901184.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA VOSHON SIMPSON, a Minor, by and
More information3:17-cv MGL Date Filed 06/29/18 Entry Number 55 Page 1 of 8
3:17-cv-02281-MGL Date Filed 06/29/18 Entry Number 55 Page 1 of 8 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Amanda Santos and Deryck Santos ) as parents and guardians
More informationIn The. Court of Appeals. Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO CV. CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-12-00490-CV CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant V. DOROTHY GUILLORY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2017 Aug 29 12:12 PM CLERK OF COURT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS PATRICIA CLEARY and GERALD CLEARY, as Husband and
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF BUILDING PROFESSIONALS IN NSW
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF BUILDING PROFESSIONALS IN NSW Paper given by Brian Walton to the Annual Conference of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors 21 22 July 2014 Introduction
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by H. Robert Yates, III Charles G. Meyer, III LeClairRyan 123 E. Main Street, 8 th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel: (434) 245-3425
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Michael P. Sharp Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo LLP 13155 Noel Road Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 Tel: (972) 980-3255 Email: msharp@feesmith.com www.feesmith.com
More information