From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cline v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Third Division
Jun 12, 1963
42 Ill. App. 2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963)

Summary

In Cline v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc., 42 Ill. App.2d 85, 191 N.E.2d 410 (1963) a new trial on the issue of damages was ordered because of Hubbard's misconduct including, once again, improper cross-examination and repeated disregard for rulings of the trial judge.

Summary of this case from Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc.

Opinion

Gen. No. 48,714. (Abstract of Decision.)

June 12, 1963.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. WILBERT F. CROWLEY, Judge, presiding. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

James A. Dooley, of Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee;

Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz Masters, of Chicago (David Jacker, Caryl P. Bonotto and John M. O'Connor, Jr., of counsel) for defendant-appellee and cross-appellee, Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc.;

Hubbard, Hubbard, O'Brien Hall, of Chicago, for M.A. Soper Co., defendant-appellee and cross-appellant.


Not to be published in full.


Summaries of

Cline v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Third Division
Jun 12, 1963
42 Ill. App. 2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963)

In Cline v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc., 42 Ill. App.2d 85, 191 N.E.2d 410 (1963) a new trial on the issue of damages was ordered because of Hubbard's misconduct including, once again, improper cross-examination and repeated disregard for rulings of the trial judge.

Summary of this case from Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc.
Case details for

Cline v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Melvin Cline, Appellant and Cross Appellee, v. Kirchwehm Bros. Cartage…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Third Division

Date published: Jun 12, 1963

Citations

42 Ill. App. 2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963)
191 N.E.2d 410

Citing Cases

Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc.

The legal authority set out in Judge Robson's opinion is sufficient to support his determination. 39 F.R.D.…

Neusus v. Sponholtz

Judge Robson stated: The court grants this motion for a new trial solely from its own observation of defense…