criticism rule in Illinois

2006Chapski, 92 Ill. 2d at 350-51 .

2006Chapski, 92 Ill. 2d at 350-51 .

1991(See Janes, 57 Ill. 2d at 407 .) Other courts have followed Janes by reviewing the merits of improper motions to dismiss, indicating that a combined motion is not grounds for reversal absent a showing of prejudice.

1991When, and only when, a legally sufficient cause of action had been stated should the court have entertained the motions for summary judgment and considered the affidavits filed in support thereof.” (Janes, 57 Ill. 2d at 406 .) In spite of the criticism of hearing such a hybrid motion, the Janes court considered the case on the merits in the interest of judicial economy.

1988(American Federation of Technical Engineers, Local 144 v. La Jeunesse (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 263 .) Section 2 — 209.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.

1971For a criticism of such doctrine see, Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co. (1959), 7 Wisc.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814 and 16 Am.Jur.2d, Conflicts of Laws, Sec. 2.

1960In the Sullivan case, the court refused to apply the old English rule that was predicated on Baker v. Bolton , and stated that it was "incapable of vindication." This criticism of the rule was quoted with approval by the Minnesota court, which refuted and rejected the reasoning of the English courts. ( Mattfeld v. Nester, (1948), 226 Minn. 106 , 32 N.W.2d 291 .) The Minnesota court explained in the Mattfeld case that the English rule denying recovery misapplied the maxim that a personal right of action dies with the person, since only the wife's cause of action for personal injuries would die

1960In the Sullivan case, the court refused to apply the old English rule that was predicated on Baker v. Bolton , and stated that it was "incapable of vindication." This criticism of the rule was quoted with approval by the Minnesota court, which refuted and rejected the reasoning of the English courts. ( Mattfeld v. Nester, (1948), 226 Minn. 106 , 32 N.W.2d 291 .) The Minnesota court explained in the Mattfeld case that the English rule denying recovery misapplied the maxim that a personal right of action dies with the person, since only the wife's cause of action for personal injuries would die

1935This instruction in the same form was given and approved in United States Brewing Co. v. Stoltenberg, 211 Ill. 531 ; Lichtenstein v. Fish Furniture Co., 272 Ill. 191 .

1935This instruction in the same form was given and approved in United States Brewing Co. v. Stoltenberg, 211 Ill. 531 ; Lichtenstein v. Fish Furniture Co., 272 Ill. 191 .

1922This court said with reference to a similar criticism of an instruction in West Chicago Street Railroad Co. v. McNulty, 166 Ill. 203 , on page 205 : “The obvious and unmistakable meaning of the instruction is, that all the care required of the plaintiff was ordinary care, which is such a degree of care as ordinarily careful persons would exercise under similar circumstances.” The same may be said with reference to the criticism here of instruction 9.

1915People’s given instruction No. 34 is subject to the same criticism as instruction No. 13 discussed by this court in People v. McGinnis, 234 Ill. 68 , for using the expression, “what is claimed to be his self-defense,” and should not have been given.

1910The criticism is that the instruction should have said the liquor obtained from Hardwick must have contributed to the intoxication in an “appreciable degree,” citing Morley et al. v. Moulton, 45 Ill.

1897As was said of a similar instruction in the case of City of LaSalle v. Porterfield, 138 Ill. 114 , “the final clause, and, generally, the plaintiff will, if the jury find the defendant guilty, be entitled to recover all damages alleged in the declaration which they may believe, from the evidence, he has sustained by reason of said injury, clearly relates back to and qualifies each item of damages which the preceding part of the instruction tells the jury is competent to be considered by them as an element of damage.” The comments of the court in approving the instruction before it in the case