Discussing doctrine in Illinois

2004See, e.g., People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill.2d 444 , 275 Ill.Dec. 838 , 793 N.E.2d 609 (2002); People v. Jackson, 205 Ill.2d 247 , 275 Ill.Dec. 521 , 793 N.E.2d 1 (2001).

2004See, e.g., People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill.2d 444 , 275 Ill.Dec. 838 , 793 N.E.2d 609 (2002); People v. Jackson, 205 Ill.2d 247 , 275 Ill.Dec. 521 , 793 N.E.2d 1 (2001).

1998See, e.g., In re Application of the County Treasurer, 131 Ill. 2d 541 (1989); La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook, 57 Ill. 2d 318 (1974); People ex rel.

1998See, e.g., In re Application of the County Treasurer, 131 Ill.2d 541 , 137 Ill.Dec. 561 , 546 N.E.2d 506 (1989); La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook, 57 Ill.2d 318 , 312 N.E.2d 252 (1974); People ex rel.

1978In People v. Attaway (1976), 41 Ill.

1942Ind Com., 376 Ill. 90 , where the court in discussing the rule relative to proof of controverted facts, uses the following language on page 92— “The facts may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and the greater or less probability, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, is all that can reasonably be required to establish controverted facts.” It is, of course, impossible for this court to say that the coronary thrombosis was, or was not, a result of the accident, as the doctors who testified would not commit themselves in this regard.

1939In Armour & Company v. Industrial Board, 275 Ill. 328 , the court in discussing the rule of construing statutes said, (p. 334): “The rules as to strict or liberal construction are of value only as assisting in finding the real meaning of the statute.

1918The rule is illustrated by various cases, such as Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski, 162 Ill. 447 , where a servant was required to work next to a dangerous pile of ore; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. McCrea, 191 Ill. 340 , where a part of a dump pile had been removed so as to leave a perpendicular wall, making it dangerous for a servant to walk over it in the nighttime; Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 196 Ill. 382 , where the servant was required to load dirt into a wheelbarrow next to a perpendicular wall which was dangerous; Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Banks, 209 Ill. 109 , where the defendant mainta

1918The rule is illustrated by various cases, such as Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski, 162 Ill. 447 , where a servant was required to work next to a dangerous pile of ore; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. McCrea, 191 Ill. 340 , where a part of a dump pile had been removed so as to leave a perpendicular wall, making it dangerous for a servant to walk over it in the nighttime; Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 196 Ill. 382 , where the servant was required to load dirt into a wheelbarrow next to a perpendicular wall which was dangerous; Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Banks, 209 Ill. 109 , where the defendant mainta

1918The rule is illustrated by various cases, such as Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski, 162 Ill. 447 , where a servant was required to work next to a dangerous pile of ore; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. McCrea, 191 Ill. 340 , where a part of a dump pile had been removed so as to leave a perpendicular wall, making it dangerous for a servant to walk over it in the nighttime; Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 196 Ill. 382 , where the servant was required to load dirt into a wheelbarrow next to a perpendicular wall which was dangerous; Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Banks, 209 Ill. 109 , where the defendant mainta

1918The rule is illustrated by various cases, such as Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski, 162 Ill. 447 , where a servant was required to work next to a dangerous pile of ore; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. McCrea, 191 Ill. 340 , where a part of a dump pile had been removed so as to leave a perpendicular wall, making it dangerous for a servant to walk over it in the nighttime; Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 196 Ill. 382 , where the servant was required to load dirt into a wheelbarrow next to a perpendicular wall which was dangerous; Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Banks, 209 Ill. 109 , where the defendant mainta

1918The rule is illustrated by various cases, such as Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanowski, 162 Ill. 447 , where a servant was required to work next to a dangerous pile of ore; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. McCrea, 191 Ill. 340 , where a part of a dump pile had been removed so as to leave a perpendicular wall, making it dangerous for a servant to walk over it in the nighttime; Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 196 Ill. 382 , where the servant was required to load dirt into a wheelbarrow next to a perpendicular wall which was dangerous; Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Banks, 209 Ill. 109 , where the defendant mainta

1918In the case of Keefe v. Armour & Co., 258 Ill. 28 , being a case where an employee was suing for damages on account of injuries suffered by the bursting of a tank which he was repairing as a boiler maker, the court in discussing an instruction with reference to the duty of an employer to furnish his employee with a safe place to work says: “The rule stated was correct, but it relates to the condition of premises, buildings and things which properly constitute a place for work.

1912Co. v. Allen, 169 Ill. 287 , the court in discussing an instruction,- containing language somewhat similar to that used here, says: “It is not the law the entire testimony of a witness may be rejected from consideration by the jury, upon the ground the witness has knowingly and wilfully exaggerated any fact or circumstance but only when he has knowingly and wilfully sworn falsely to some matter or thing material in its character.” And in C. & S. L.

1908Co. v. Lawlor, 229 Ill., 621 , the court in discussing an instruction containing these words, “The jury are instructed that the preponderance of the evidence in a case is not necessarily alone determined by the number of witnesses testifying to a particular fact or state of facts,” after reviewing the previous holdings on instructions containing the same statement, said, “We do not think it can be said this court has given its unqualified approval of this instruction or that it might not be misleading in a case where the question of numbers was important and no other instruction was given to s