- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago v. Lange
80 Ill. App. 2d 100 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967)2 Citing cases
Lange v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
44 Ill. 2d 73 (Ill. 1969) Cited 30 timesIn Lange v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 44 Ill.2d 73, 254 N.E.2d 467, there was a collision between Lange and a truck driven by an employee of Coca-Cola, which sued Lange in the municipal court of Chicago for property damage.
Coca-Cola's action was tried before a judge of the municipal court, and judgment was entered in favor of Lange. The appellate court affirmed. ( 80 Ill. App.2d 100.) Thereafter Lange moved in his circuit court action for a summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability on the ground that the prior judgment in the municipal court determined that issue against Coca-Cola. As has been stated, his motion was granted and the appellate court affirmed. The governing principle was stated in Hoffman v. Hoffman, 330 Ill. 413, 418: "To operate as an estoppel by verdict it is absolutely necessary that there shall have been a finding of a specific fact in the former judgment or record that is material and controlling in that case and also material and controlling in the pending case. It must also conclusively appear that the matter of fact was so in issue that it was necessarily determined by the court rendering the judgment interposed as a bar by reason of such estoppel. If there is any uncertainty on the point that more than one distinct issue of fact is presented to the court the estoppel will not be applied, for the reason that the court may hav
Lange v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago
105 Ill. App. 2d 99 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969) Cited 6 timesIn Lange v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, Inc. (1969), 105 Ill. App.2d 99, rev'd on other grounds (1969), 44 Ill.2d 73, a doctor, testifying as plaintiff's expert witness, when asked for his opinion of plaintiff's prognosis, testified that he was reluctant to answer the question while plaintiff's wife remained in the courtroom.
The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Lange against Coca-Cola on the issue of liability. The opinion handed down by the Appellate Court in Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Chicago, Inc. v. Lange, 80 Ill. App.2d 100, 224 N.E.2d 628 (abstract), the property damage action brought by Coca-Cola against Lange, reveals the following occurred: "In the late afternoon of March 7, 1962, . . . [Coca-Cola's] truck was travelling in an eastward direction on Huntley Road . . . in Algonquin, Illinois. . . . [Lange] was driving his auto in the opposite direction on the same road.