X hits on this document

239 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 60

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (continued)

Page(s)

Nolley v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R., 183 F.2d 566 (8th Cir. 1950) .......................................................................................40

Royal Elm Nursing & Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. N. Ill. Gas Co.,

1 7 2 I l l . A p p . 3 d 7 4 ( 1 s t D i s t . 1 9 8 8 )

.......................................................................

3 4 , 3 7

Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 870 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) .........................................................37

Scibelli v. Penn. R.R., 108 A.2d 348 (Pa. 1954) ................................................................37

York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) ..........................33

DAN B. DOBBS ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS § 59 (5th ed. 1984)...............................................................................................................36

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339.................................................................................36

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(d)............................................................................33

III.

THE TRIAL COURT’S ONE-SIDED AND PATENTLY ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY DECISIONS NECESSITATE A NEW TRIAL. .......................................................................................................41

Christou v. Arlington Park-Washington Park Race Tracks Corp.,

1 0 4 I l l . A p p . 3 d 2 5 7 ( 1 s t D i s t . 1 9 8 2 )

...........................................................................

41

A.

Because Choate Was Bound By His Judicial Admissions That He Appreciated The Dangerousness Of Moving Trains, The Trial Court Erred In Barring Defendants From Introducing Those Admissions And In Allowing Him To Contradict Them At Trial......................................................................................................41

Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 212(a)(2) ....................................................................................................42

Banco Popular v. Beneficial Sys., Inc., 335 Ill. App. 3d 196 (1st Dist. 2002) ..................43

Bell v. Harmon, 284 S.W.2d 812 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955)......................................................42

Caponi v. Larry’s 66, 236 Ill. App. 3d 660 (2d Dist. 1992) ..............................................44

Cent. Ill. Light Co. v. Stenzel, 44 Ill. App. 2d 388 (3d Dist. 1964) ...................................43

Findlay v. Rubin Glass & Mirror Co., 213 N.E.2d 858 (Mass. 1966) ..............................42

  • -

    vi -

Document info
Document views239
Page views239
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 07:09:40 UTC 2017
Pages60
Paragraphs1472
Words18760

Comments