People ex Rel. Mendez v. Villa

7 Citing cases

  1. Klingelhoets v. Charlton-Perrin

    2013 Ill. App. 112412 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 46 times
    Affirming admission of evidence that plaintiff stopped physical therapy because it was too costly in response to defendant's suggestion that she stopped because she did not need additional treatment

    Such rebuttal evidence is admissible if it explains, repels, contradictsor disproves the evidence presented. See Chapman, 351 Ill.App.3d at 106, 285 Ill.Dec. 569, 812 N.E.2d 389;Lagestee v. Days Inn Management Co., 303 Ill.App.3d 935, 942, 237 Ill.Dec. 284, 709 N.E.2d 270 (1999) (quoting People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill.App.3d 866, 870, 198 Ill.Dec. 263, 632 N.E.2d 322 (1994)). Just as with the admission of any evidence, the decision whether to admit rebuttal evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.

  2. Chapman v. Hubbard Woods Motors, Inc.

    351 Ill. App. 3d 99 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming the trial court's sanction of barring a physician's testimony at trial connected to his review of various medical records after he had been deposed because this information was not specifically disclosed in a supplement to the Rule 213 interrogatory answers and the catchall statement that the medical providers' opinions may be based upon reviews of all medical records was insufficient and not in compliance with Rule 213

    Rebuttal evidence is admissible "`if it tends to explain, repel, contradict or disprove the evidence of [a witness].'" Lagestee v. Days Inn Management Co., 303 Ill. App. 3d 935, 942, 709 N.E.2d 270, 276 (1999), quoting People ex rel Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App. 3d 866, 870, 632 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1994). If a defendant presents in its case in chief an affirmative matter to support its defense, the plaintiff then has the right to introduce evidence in rebuttal as to such affirmative matter. Lagestee, 303 Ill. App. 3d at 942, 709 N.E.2d at 276.

  3. Maffett v. Bliss

    329 Ill. App. 3d 562 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Observing evidence tending to render a matter at issue more or less probable is relevant

    Such testimony would have directly contradicted the testimony of Thurman and Metz regarding visibility at the time of the collision. See People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App. 3d 866, 870, 632 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1994) (rebuttal evidence is admissible "if it tends to explain, repel, contradict or disprove the testimony of a witness"). B. The Maffetts' Claim That the Trial Court Erred by Admitting Evidence Regarding Kathleen's Prior Vision Problems

  4. Lagestee v. Days Inn Management Co.

    303 Ill. App. 3d 935 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that "the defendant is required to present medical or other competent evidence of a causal or relevancy connection between plaintiff's prior injury, prior accident, or preexisting condition and the injury at issue as a prerequisite of admissibility"

    Rebuttal evidence is admissible "if it tends to explain, repel, contradict or disprove the evidence of defendant." People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App.3d 866, 870, 632 N.E.2d 322 (1994). A reviewing court may consider errors in the exclusion of evidence and grant a new trial if there were serious and prejudicial errors made at trial.

  5. In re Timothy H

    301 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 36 times

    A trial court's nondescription of the applicable burden of proof cannot be harmless because the jury's deliberations, findings, and ultimate decision were rendered through an improper scope of analysis. See People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App.3d 866, 871 (1994). If a fair trial is to be had before layperson jurors, the issues and instructions must be presented fairly and simply.

  6. People v. Eveans

    277 Ill. App. 3d 36 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that self-initiated statements volunteered after Miranda warnings had been given are admissible

    An abuse of discretion occurs where the rebuttal testimony contradicts testimony on a collateral issue, i.e., if it has no relevance to a matter of consequence in the action as defined by the pleadings. ( People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa (1994), 260 Ill. App.3d 866, 870, 632 N.E.2d 322, 325.) Defendant asserts Budde's testimony was collateral.

  7. State v. Boles

    183 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    See e.g., In re Paternity of M.J.B., 144 Wis.2d 638, 425 N.W.2d 404, 408 (1988); People ex rel. Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App.3d 866, 198 Ill.Dec. 263, 264, 632 N.E.2d 322, 323 (1994); Commonwealth v. Khamphouseane, 434 Pa. Super. 93, 642 A.2d 490, 492 (1994). However, because blood typing does not provide sufficiently specific information to support an opinion that blood found at a crime scene came from a defendant (or blood found on the defendant came from the victim), the evidence is not as damaging to a defendant as DNA evidence.