Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1893–1978 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shore v. Turmangreen1 sentence1978While we have concluded that no instruction should have been given on the subject of intoxication and recognize the general rule that it may be reversible error not to define intoxication in a civil suit where the evidence supports the charge (Shore v. Turman, 63 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saldana v. Wirtz Cartage Co.
green
1 sentence1978The appellate court quoted only an isolated segment of the record — “Your Honor, I object to the interrogatory, He has taken a position, Your Honor — Is it a matter of law?”, finding, on the basis of this quotation, that “it is evident from the record that counsel was at this point objecting to the interrogatory *** because of the lack of explanatory instructions.” ( 55 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Offutt v. World's Columbian Exposition
green
1 sentence1910In Offutt v. World’s Columbian Exposition, 175 Ill. 472 , the court in defining the doctrine as applicable to an “order case,” said: “The rule is that where the servant is injured while obeying the orders of his master to perform work in a dangerous manner, the master is liable unless the danger is so imminent that a man of ordinary prudence would not incur it.” And in Springfield v. Parks, 222 ibid. 355, it is said: “ And the question whether the execution of the order of the foreman was attended with such danger that a man of ordinary prudence, having the knowledge of the situation which app | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Frazer v. Howe
green
1 sentence1904The correct rule is succinctly stated in Frazzer v. Howe, 106 Ill. 563 , as follows (p. 574) : “It is not within the province of the judge, on such a motion, [a motion to withdraw a case from the jury,] to weigh the evidence and ascertain where the preponderance is. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Thompson v. Bennett
green
1 sentence1904(Thompson v. Bennett, 194 Ill. 57 ; Purdy v. Hall, 134 id. 298.) Notwithstanding the many decisions of this court defining that rule, it seems to be understood by counsel for the defendants in error that the court may properly take a case from the jury whenever it would feel compelled, upon weighing the evidence, to set the verdict aside if returned contrary to the views of the court. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
City of Chicago v. Hasley
neutral
1 sentence1893Chicago v. Hasley, 25 Ill. 595 ; Merwin v. Chicago, 45 Ill. 133 . | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Merwin v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence1893Chicago v. Hasley, 25 Ill. 595 ; Merwin v. Chicago, 45 Ill. 133 . | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.