railroad claim in Illinois

1969(Waters v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 86 Ill.

1969The petition charged that by refusing to grant the Railroad's motion for summary judgment in a pending common-law negligence action, the circuit court had failed to comply with the mandate of the appellate court in a previous action between the same parties under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, in which a judgment for the Railroad had been affirmed. ( Waters v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 86 Ill.

2024Id.

2017The district court excluded the evidence, reasoning that the focus was on “whether the Railroad had exercised reasonable care, not whether the procedures used by the Railroad could have been made safer.” Id.

1994App. 3d 47, 65 , 573 N.E.2d 279, 289-90 .) It vaguely refers to a prior argument which, we assume, was the Railroad’s motion in limine argued before the trial court on the previous day.

1972Reliance on Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612 , 614 and Palmer House Co. v. Otto (1952), 347 Ill.App. 198 , both of which were decided on the pleadings, is, in our view, misplaced.

1972Reliance on Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612 , 614 and Palmer House Co. v. Otto (1952), 347 Ill.App. 198 , both of which were decided on the pleadings, is, in our view, misplaced.

1960In Forslund v. CTA, 9 Ill.App.2d 290 , 132 N.E.2d 801 (1st Dist. 1956), the court, in dicta, stated that the trial court properly refused to require defendant’s counsel to produce on the trial a written statement given by a witness to an agent of the streetcar company.

1960In Forslund v. CTA, 9 Ill.App.2d 290 , 132 N.E.2d 801 (1st Dist. 1956), the court, in dicta, stated that the trial court properly refused to require defendant’s counsel to produce on the trial a written statement given by a witness to an agent of the streetcar company.

1960In People v. White, 8 Ill.App.2d 428 , 131 N.E.2d 803 (1st Dist. 1956), it was held error to order defendant’s counsel to produce on demand made on tbe trial a statement made to a railroad claim agent, where tbe statement was not used by tbe railroad’s attorney on the trial and no showing or claim was made that tbe statement contained impeachment, and counsel bad not employed tbe statement to refresh tbe witness’ recollection.

1960In People v. White, 8 Ill.App.2d 428 , 131 N.E.2d 803 (1st Dist. 1956), it was held error to order defendant’s counsel to produce on demand made on tbe trial a statement made to a railroad claim agent, where tbe statement was not used by tbe railroad’s attorney on the trial and no showing or claim was made that tbe statement contained impeachment, and counsel bad not employed tbe statement to refresh tbe witness’ recollection.