X hits on this document

187 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 60

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (continued)

Page(s)

C.

The Trial Court Erred In Allowing Dr. Berg To Testify About Adolescent Behavior And Law Enforcement, Two Issues About Which He Had No Expertise...................................................................46

Bachman v. Gen. Motors Corp., 332 Ill. App. 3d 760 (4th Dist. 2002) ............................47

Todd W. Musburger, Ltd. v. Meier, 394 Ill. App. 3d 781 (1st Dist. 2009) ..................46, 47

D.

The Trial Court Erred In Allowing Choate To Cross-Examine Defendants’ Engineering Expert With A Photograph For Which He Never Established A Foundation..........................................47

Anderson v. Human Rights Comm’n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 35 (1st Dist. 2000) .......................48

Apa v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 374 Ill. App. 3d 1082 (1st Dist. 2007)..........................48

IV.

A NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .....................48

Junker v. Ziegler, 113 Ill.2d 332 (1986) ............................................................................49

Mizowek v. DeFranco, 64 Ill. 2d 303 (1976).....................................................................48

Petre v. Cardiovascular Consultants, S.C., 373 Ill. App. 3d 929 (1st Dist. 2007) ...........................................................................48

York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) ..........................48

  • -

    viii -

Document info
Document views187
Page views187
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 10:04:39 UTC 2016
Pages60
Paragraphs1472
Words18760

Comments