Parikh v. Gilchrist

4 Citing cases

  1. Crosson v. Ruzich

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 170235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    It is not necessary for the animal to attack, and the plaintiff can recover when any action by the animal causes the plaintiff injury, even if the action is harmless in itself. Parikh v. Gilchrist , 2017 IL App (1st) 160532, ¶ 26, 418 Ill.Dec. 181, 89 N.E.3d 1015.¶ 25 Defendants do not dispute that they owned the dog, that plaintiff did not provoke the dog, and that plaintiff was peaceably conducting herself in a place where she had a lawful right to be.

  2. Vaness v. E. Bellevue Owner, LLC

    Case No. 17-C-73 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 15, 2019)

    "[P]roximate cause of an injury is, in most cases, a question of fact to be determined from all the attending circumstances." Parikh v. Gilchrist, 2017 IL App (1st) 160532, ¶ 28, 89 N.E.3d 1015. "It can only be a question of law when the facts are not only undisputed but also such that there can be no difference in the judgment of reasonable people as to the inferences to be drawn for them."

  3. N. League of Prof'l Baseball Teams v. Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Ams. & Farkas, LLP

    2018 Ill. App. 172407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    However, a "known right" is a self-defining and commonly understood phrase, as opposed to a technical term or words of art. See Parikh v. Gilchrist , 2017 IL App (1st) 160532, ¶ 34, 418 Ill.Dec. 181, 89 N.E.3d 1015. In the absence of anything to obscure the meaning, a "known right" does not need to be defined.

  4. Dep't of Transp. v. Dalzell

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 160911 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    A court's decision to refuse a non-IPI instruction should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Parikh v. Gilchrist , 2017 IL App (1st) 160532, ¶ 33, 418 Ill.Dec. 181, 89 N.E.3d 1015. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 239(a) (eff.