Halter v. Schoreck

2 Citing cases

  1. Vortanz v. Elmhurst Memorial Hospital

    534 N.E.2d 625 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the dismissal in medical malpractice action after patient's expert failed to appear for deposition on date ordered by trial judge was an abuse of discretion where the expert was not under the direct control of the plaintiff or his attorneys

    • 1 Plaintiff implies that a motion must be in writing, but cites no authority in support of this proposition. In Halter v. Schoreck (1966), 69 Ill. App.2d 104, 216 N.E.2d 278, the court stated that the primary difference between a petition and a motion is that a petition is always in writing while a motion is usually in writing but is sometimes made orally. ( Halter, 69 Ill. App.2d at 111, 216 N.E.2d at 281.)

  2. Sunderland v. Future Investments, Inc.

    256 N.E.2d 667 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    [5] Plaintiffs' petition was addressed to the court's discretion, and in passing on the issues raised the court could exercise equitable powers. Numerous decisions have held that reinstatement of a cause dismissed for want of prosecution or vacating default orders is proper where a verified petition shows failure of the giving of notice. Halter v. Schoreck, 69 Ill. App.2d 104, 216 N.E.2d 278 (1st Dist 1966); Maierhofer v. Gerhardt, supra; Stackler v. Village of Skokie, 53 Ill. App.2d 417, 203 N.E.2d 183 (1st Dist 1964); Nagel v. Wagner, 46 Ill. App.2d 2, 196 N.E.2d 728 (5th Dist 1964). We do not deem that the rule of these cases has been changed by the late decision of Fennema v. Vander Aa, 42 Ill.2d 309, 247 N.E.2d 409 (1969), where the Supreme Court affirmed an order of the circuit court denying a petition to vacate an order of dismissal, based upon only an allegation that the plaintiff's attorney did not receive notice.