Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc

22 Ill.19 N.J. Misc. 455, 20 A.2d 707 (Cir. Ct. 1941)

Brief Fact Summary. The issues in the case centered on whether the Defendant, John C. Hickey, Inc. (Defendant), was negligent or whether the Plaintiff, Robb (Plaintiff), was contributorily negligent. The jury’s verdict found the Defendant to be more negligent than Plaintiff and awarded damages. The court found the jury’s verdict to be vague and ambiguous with regard to the final decision.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A court may mold an informal verdict to render it formal, effective and make it coincide with the substance of the verdict as agreed upon and intended by the jury. However, this power is only exercised where the real purpose and intent of the jury clearly, sufficiently and convincingly appears. Continue reading “Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc”

Magnani v. Trogi

22 Ill.70 Ill. App. 2d 216, 218 N.E.2d 21 (App. Ct. 1966)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Magnani (Plaintiff), sued the Defendant, Trogi (Defendant) on two causes of action. The First was a wrongful death action on behalf of her deceased husband. The second, an action on her own behalf to recover funeral expenses and medical costs. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff, but incorrectly delivered the form of the verdict. The trial judge ordered a new trial because of the error.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The decision of a trial court on a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown. Continue reading “Magnani v. Trogi”

Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc

22 Ill.216 F. Supp. 734 (S.D. Cal. 1963)

Brief Fact Summary. The jury in a wrongful death action submitted a general verdict accompanied by interrogatories. The Plaintiffs, the Nollenberger family (Plaintiffs), alleged that the interrogatory answers were inconsistent with the general verdict and requested the court to either (i) submit additional interrogatories to the jury; or (ii) calculate the verdict on the answers given or (iii) grant a new trial.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When special interrogatories are inconsistent with the general verdict, the special interrogatories control. Continue reading “Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc”

Roberts v. Ross

22 Ill.344 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1965)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Roberts (Plaintiff), appeals a decision from the lower court dismissing his claim against the Defendant, Ross (Defendant). The claim was for money owed to Plaintiff by way of an agreement, which allegedly stated Plaintiff would receive a commission for finding a buyer of Defendant’s property in St. Thomas.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requires the trier of facts to find the facts specially and state his conclusions of law thereon with clarity. The findings of fact and conclusions of law must be sufficient to indicate the bases of the trial judge’s decision. Continue reading “Roberts v. Ross”

Daniel J. Hartwig Associates, Inc. v. Kanner

22 Ill.913 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1990)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Daniel J. Hartwig Associates, Inc. (Plaintiff), received a directed verdict against the Defendant, Kenner (Defendant), in a debt collection case. Defendant appealed arguing a material issue of fact existed as to whether there was a valid contract due to Plaintiff’s alleged misrepresentations made prior to entering the contract, and thus, should have been submitted to a jury.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A court should direct a verdict only if there is no credible evidence to sustain a verdict in favor of the party against whom the motion was made. Continue reading “Daniel J. Hartwig Associates, Inc. v. Kanner”

Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co

22 Ill.219 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2000)

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant for the wrongful death of decedent. They asked the District Court for jury instructions to be given which were consistent with a precedential case. The judge refused and the jury found for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. District Courts are not relieved from the responsibility of giving a proper instruction when presented with an applicable instruction that raises an important issue of law or directs the court’s attention to a point upon which an instruction to the jury would be important, simply because the party making the request has proposed an instruction that does not completely comply with the relevant law. Continue reading “Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co”

Denman v. Spain

22 Ill.242 Miss. 431, 135 So. 2d 195 (1961)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Denman (Plaintiff), sued the Defendant, the Ross estate (Defendant), for personal injuries suffered by Plaintiff due to Defendant’s negligent driving in a car accident. The jury found for Plaintiff, however on Defendant’s motion, the judge granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Defendant’s favor.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A finding of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is correct in cases where the original jury verdict is based on speculative facts. Continue reading “Denman v. Spain”

Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co

22 Ill.352 U.S. 500, 77 S. Ct. 443, 1 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1957)

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Rogers (Petitioner), sought personal injury damages against the Respondent, Missouri Pacific R.Co. (Respondent), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (the Act) and was awarded them by the District Court. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Petitioner’s evidence did not support a finding of Respondent’s liability. Petitioner appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the probative facts of a case could support a verdict for either litigant, a jury must hear the case. Continue reading “Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co”

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc

22 Ill.500 U.S. 614, 111 S. Ct. 2077, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1991)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Edmonson (Plaintiff), appealed the jury decision in his negligence suit citing the Defendant, Leesville Concrete Company’s (Defendant), use of race-based peremptory challenges.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude prospective jurors based on reasons of race. Continue reading “Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc”

Segal v. American Cas. Co

22 Ill.250 F. Supp. 936 (D. Md. 1966)

Brief Fact Summary. This case involves the Defendants, American Casualty Company and another insurance company’s (Defendants), motion to strike the Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Segal’s (Plaintiffs) demand for a jury trial.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a party seeking a jury trial must, after removal, make a formal demand for the jury trial, if the court from which the case was removed would have made that party take some action to exercise his right to a jury. Continue reading “Segal v. American Cas. Co”

Flowers v. Flowers

22 Ill.397 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)

Brief Fact Summary. Lawsuit involved a question of the disqualification of a juror based on bias or prejudice in a child custody case tried before a jury.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Bias, the inclination toward one side or another and pre- judgment prejudice, toward any parties or subject matter, are bases for the disqualification of a juror. However, to disqualify, it must appear that the state of mind of the juror leads to the natural inference that they will not or did not act with impartiality. Continue reading “Flowers v. Flowers”

Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 391 v. Terry

22 Ill.494 U.S. 558, 110 S. Ct. 1339, 108 L. Ed. 2d 519, 133 LRRM 2793 (1990)

Brief Fact Summary. The Respondents, various unionized workers (Respondents), brought action against the Petitioners, Chauffeurs, Teamster and Helpers Local 391 (Petitioners), their union for violation of the duty of fair representation. Respondents sought compensatory damages in the form of back pay and loss of benefits. Respondents requested and were granted a jury trial by the District and Appellate Courts. The Union appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Claims based on the duty of fair representation are legal in nature. Continue reading “Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 391 v. Terry”

Hiatt v. Yergin

22 Ill.497, 284 N.E.2d 834 (Ct. App. 1972)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs, Lorraine Hiatt in her capacity as the Successor to the Estate of W.H. Hiatt and individually (Plaintiffs), sued for damages and specific performance on breach of two contracts entered into with the Defendant, Yergin (Defendant). Plaintiff requested a jury trial and was denied.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party’s right to trial by jury depends upon the nature of the claims stated and not upon the issues that may arise within such claims. Continue reading “Hiatt v. Yergin”

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc

22 Ill.517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1461 (1996)

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Markman (Petitioner), brought a patent infringement suit against the Respondent, Westview Instruments, Inc. (Respondent). The jury interpreted expert witness testimony and held for the Petitioner. The Judge directed verdict for the Respondent stating that the jury interpreted the information incorrectly.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In some cases where it is unclear as to whether a judge or jury should decide upon terms of art in a case that is traditionally decided by a jury, precedent states that, judges, because of their experience may be more capable to define the terms. Continue reading “Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc”

Tull v. United States

22 Ill.481 U.S. 412, 107 S. Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365, 25 ERC 1857 (1987)

Brief Fact Summary. The Federal Government sued a real estate developer for a violation of the Clean Water Act (the Act), a law allowing the Government to recover civil penalties and request injunctions. The Petitioner, Tull (Petitioner), asked for a jury trial on the civil penalties issue and was denied.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is a right to a jury trial for actions that determine liability for civil penalties, but a judge may determine such amounts. Continue reading “Tull v. United States”

Coulas v. Smith

22 Ill.325, 395 P.2d 527 (1964)

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Coulas (Defendant), failed to appear in court claiming he had no notice that the trial date had been changed. The Defendant, Smith (Defendant), appealed the judgments entered against him at the trial.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Once an answer on the merits is filed and the case is at issue, a default judgment cannot be issued. If the defendant fails to appear at the trial, a judgment on the merits may be entered against him upon proper proof. Continue reading “Coulas v. Smith”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc

22 Ill.477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2297 (1986)

Brief Fact Summary. In a libel suit, the Court of Appeals erred in finding that a standard of proof, by which the plaintiff would have to prove his case at trial, did not apply when considering a summary judgment motion.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The inquiry involved in ruling on a summary judgment motion, requires the court to use the substantive standard of proof that would apply at the trial on its merits. Continue reading “Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)

Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Mrs. Catrett, (Respondent) brought a negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability lawsuit against 15 named companies including the Celotex Corp. (the Petitioner), claiming that the death of her husband was due to his exposure to products containing asbestos manufactured or distributed by the companies.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c) (FRCP Rule 56(c)) mandates summary judgment must be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who failed to show sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Continue reading “Celotex Corp. v. Catrett”

Cross v. United States

22 Ill.336 F.2d 431 (2d Cir. 1964)

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellees, the Cross’s (Appellees), claimed they were entitled to an income tax refund on their joint returns for expenses Professor Cross incurred during foreign travels. The Appellees presented several affidavits from Professor Cross’s colleagues citing that the travel was necessary for a professor of languages. The district court granted summary judgment. The Appellant, the United States Government (Appellant), appealed citing triable issues of fact existed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c) (FRCP 56(c)) states that Summary Judgment is permitted only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Continue reading “Cross v. United States”

Smith Contracting Corp. v. Trojan Construction Co

22 Ill.192 F.2d 234 (10th Cir. 1951)

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Smith Contracting Corp. (Defendant), failed to raise an issue during pretrial procedures and was precluded from bringing the issue up at trial. The Defendant appealed the decision.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow amendments to pleadings by leave of court when justice so requires. Continue reading “Smith Contracting Corp. v. Trojan Construction Co”

Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp

22 Ill.602 F.2d 1062 (2d Cir. 1979)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp (Plaintiff), brought an antitrust lawsuit against a rival theatre. The Plaintiff was extremely negligent with respect to following orders to compel discovery. As a result, the Magistrate Gershon (Magistrate) recommended Plaintiff be precluded from introducing evidence with respect to damages.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Grossly negligent failure to obey orders compelling discovery justifies the severest disciplinary measures available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 (FRCP Rule 37). Continue reading “Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp”

G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp

22 Ill.871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989)

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Joseph Oat Corp. (Defendant), failed to send corporate representatives to a pretrial conference after their presence was requested in an order by a federal Magistrate. Defendants challenged the sanctions imposed on it for its failure to comply with the order.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Federal district courts have an inherent authority to manage and control the litigation before it. Though they are bound by them, courts are not strictly limited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Continue reading “G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp”

Payne v. S.S. Nabob

22 Ill.302 F.2d 803 (3d Cir. 1962)

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Payne (Appellant), brought a personal injury admiralty suit and identified in a pretrial memo, which the judge relied on in his pretrial report, the condition Appellant was relying on to prove his cause of action. At trial, Appellant’s attorney stated a different condition was responsible for the action. The trial court disallowed this showing as well as the presentation of two witnesses for Appellant who were not included in Appellant’s pretrial memo.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Attorneys at the pretrial stage owe a duty to the court and opposing counsel to make a full and fair disclosure of their views as to what the real issues at trial will be. Continue reading “Payne v. S.S. Nabob”