Tort Law In Defense of Bulger v CTA
|
|
- Lauren Berry
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page 1 of 6 May 2006 Volume 94 Number 5 Page 254 Tort Law In Defense of Bulger v CTA By Anthony Longo A defense lawyer's perspective on the Bulger court's finding that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible against a defendant. For a dozen years, Illinois trial courts, citing Pearl v CTA, 1 held that a defendant's post-accident internal investigative report was admissible as an admission of negligence. In 2003, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed course on this controversial issue in Bulger v CTA. 2 In Bulger, the appellate court took sides on an issue that has split state and federal courts throughout the nation 3 - whether the "subsequent remedial measure doctrine" barred the admission into evidence of a defendant's internal post-accident report, which contained investigatory opinions and conclusions about the subject accident for the purpose of maximizing future safety. 4 The first district ruled that such reports are inadmissible under the subsequent remedial doctrine, and in so doing joined other jurisdictions in siding with defendants. 5 In response to the Bulger court's position, commentators - including some in this journal 6 - have sought to minimize the impact of the case's clear holding. This article will offer a defense-lawyer's perspective on Bulger and similar cases from other jurisdictions. The subsequent remedial measure doctrine Remedial measures, whether a change, repair, or precaution, taken after an event generally may not be introduced into evidence as an admission of negligence of culpable conduct in connection with the event. 7 Evidence of postaccident remedial measures is not admissible to prove prior negligence. 8 Many reasons support this rule. First, a strong policy favors encouraging improvements to enhance public safety. 9 Second, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not probative of prior negligence, as later carefulness may simply be an attempt to exercise the highest standard of care. 10 Third, a jury might view such conduct as an admission of negligence. 11
2 Page 2 of 6 Like almost any rule of law, the subsequent remedial measure doctrine has exceptions. For example, such evidence is admissible to prove ownership 12 or control 13 of property when disputed by the defendant. Another exception is where a party seeks to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures when disputed by the defendant. 14 And of course, evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be used for impeachment purposes. 15 In Bulger, the appellate court faced an interesting fact pattern but nevertheless chose to protect the defendant from evidence of subsequent remedial measures instead of allowing it as a party admission. The Bulger case The facts. Bulger was hit by a Chicago bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Dearborn and Polk. 16 Following this accident, a CTA employee, Willy Lipsey, conducted an interview of the bus driver and authored a "Special Occurrence Report." 17 In that report, Lipsey memorialized that the bus driver violated CTA rules and standards of procedures during the accident and ordered the driver to retraining. 18 The trial court admitted this evidence, citing Pearl. 19 The jury brought back a verdict against the CTA, thus precipitating the appeal. 20 The CTA argued that the evidence was inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. 21 The first district appellate court agreed with the CTA and reversed the trial court, holding that to admit such evidence was an abuse of discretion. 22 The holding. The appellate court held that evidence of the defendant's post-accident, internal investigatory opinions and conclusions was inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. 23 In so holding, the Bulger court refused to follow Pearl, which allowed evidence of such internal investigative conclusions into evidence by labeling them as admissions. 24 Criticisms of Pearl. Bulger began its criticism of Pearl by explaining that it was inconsistent with the intervening Illinois Supreme Court case, Herzog v Lexington Township. 25 In Herzog, the high court recognized the risk that the trier of fact may view evidence of post-accident remedial measures as an admission of negligence and emphasized such as a compelling reason for excluding such evidence. 26 The Bulger court wrote that this language from Herzog left the Pearl holding of questionable validity. 27 If the Herzog court stressed the goal of protecting the defendant from the jury's interpretation of such evidence as an admission of negligence, then how could the Pearl case be correct, the court reasoned. Beyond that, the court wrote, the "holding" in Pearl was actually judicial dicta never deserving of binding deference. 28 At the crucial point in the Pearl decision, following the key discussion on admissibility, the court stated "we need not decide this appeal on that basis..." 29 Bulger points to this language as evidence that Pearl's discussion of admissibility was dicta, 30 which the Bulger court was free to disregard. The court instead formulated a new rule for Illinois trial courts: any defendant's internal postaccident report containing investigatory opinions or conclusions is inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure if that report was prepared towards providing greater future safety. The Bulger court rounded out its opinion by applying Pearl to the facts at bar and determined that the evidence was nevertheless inadmissible. This is where the factual differences between the two cases become important. Pearl based its reasoning on the fact that the CTA had an internal mandatory policy of investigating and remedying every bus driver accident. 31 Because of this mandatory policy, the Pearl court reasoned that the purpose behind the
3 Page 3 of 6 subsequent remedial measure doctrine was lost on the CTA, which required no judicial encouragement to undertake subsequent remedial measures. 32 In Bulger, however, the evidence showed that the CTA no longer had such a mandatory policy. Instead, post-accident investigations were discretionary. 33 Moreover, Bulger noted that evidence in the record demonstrated that the purpose for the discretionary investigations was to maximize future safety. 34 The Pearl court "brushed aside" any consideration of judicial encouragement of humanitarian efforts. 35 The scope of Bulger. The Bulger court did not limit its holding to bus, transportation, or any other one class of cases or defendants. Nothing about defendant CTA's status as a transportation company makes it more deserving of protection under the doctrine than any other defendant. Defense attorneys should make this clear when arguing their case. Whatever the case - premises liability, transportation, or medical malpractice - it can be argued that Bulger protects all defendants from their own post-accident internal report containing investigatory opinions and conclusions addressing the accident for the purposes of maximizing future safety. Other jurisdictions Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion the Bulger court did. 36 The following explanation of why postaccident investigatory reports are inadmissible appears in the Massachusetts case Martel v Massachusetts Bay Trans Authority: [W]e think that good public policy also requires the exclusion of the results of defendant's investigation into the causes of an accident involving its bus. Although not itself a "repair" of a dangerous condition, the investigation is the prerequisite to any remedial safety measure. Without discovering the cause of the accident, the defendant can scarcely hope to prevent its recurrence. The investigation is inextricably bound up with the subsequent remedial measures to which it may lead, and questions of inadmissibility of evidence as to each should be analyzed in conjunction and answered consistently. *** The investigation cannot sensibly be treated differently. To do so would discourage potential defendants from conducting such investigations, and so preclude safety improvements, and frustrate the salutary public policy underlying the rule. 37 Bulger and Rule 703 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court, an expert may testify about inadmissible evidence, so long as it is the type that an expert reasonably relies upon. 38 Under a broad reading of Rule 703, a plaintiff's expert arguably could be used to avoid the inadmissibility protections of the subsequent remedial measures doctrine by merely testifying that he relied upon the substantively inadmissible internal report. Admittedly, such internal reports are reliable evidence that many experts would naturally rely upon. While no Illinois Appellate Court case appears to address a collision between the subsequent remedial measure doctrine and Rule 703, Illinois cases have recognized the danger in an overly broad application of Rule 703. In City of Chicago v Anthony, the Illinois Supreme Court stated as follows: The reason for the substantive inadmissibility of the facts or data upon which an expert relies must be considered by the circuit court. If another rule of law applicable to the case excludes the information sought to be relied upon by the expert, the information may not be permitted to come before the jury under the guise of a basis for the opinion of the expert. 39
4 Page 4 of 6 If Rule 703 were allowed to trump the doctrine, any plaintiff wishing to admit evidence of subsequent remedial measures could simply procure an expert who would rely on that evidence. That could not have been intended by the Anthony court or by the other panels enforcing the general doctrine. In a 1988 University of Illinois Law Review piece, the author hypothetically explained as follows: Normally, under rule 407, a plaintiff who fell on a defective sidewalk could not, to prove the defendant was negligent, offer evidence that the defendant later repaired the walkway. However, a literal reading of rule 703 would seem to allow an expert to conclude and testify that, because the defendant later repaired the walkway, the defendant was previously negligent in maintaining the walkway...however, the expert's finding that the material is reliable cannot possibly satisfy the policy concern that originally made the subsequent remedial measure inadmissible. This is because, in adopting rule 403, the drafters clearly chose to exclude this type of Conclusion evidence despite its reliability. 40 Like it or not, Bulger represents the Illinois position in a legal debate that divided courts nationwide. Defense attorneys should cite the case vigorously in protecting their client's post-accident internal reports containing investigatory opinions or conclusions toward maximizing future safety. Anthony Longo <ajl@cs-g.com> is an associate at Cassiday Schade LLP in Chicago Ill App 3d 499, 532 NE2d 439 (1st D 1988) Ill App 3d 103, 801 NE2d 1127 (1st D 2003). 3. See Bulger. Also see Edward J. Imwinkelried and James R. McCall, Minnesota v Philip Morris, Inc: An Important Legal Ethics Message Which Neglects the Public Interest in Product Safety Research, 87 Ky L J 1127, 1154 fn 205 (noting the split). 4. Bulger at 110, 801 NE2d at For good treatment of the subsequent remedial measure doctrine in general, see Kennith L. Gosch, Admissibility of Change or Repair After Injury as Evidence of Negligence, 15 SD L Rev 287 (1970), and Susan Bates Ward, Admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures, 32 Okla L Rev 371 (1979). 5. For other jurisdictions agreeing with Bulger, see Martel v Massachusetts Bay Trans Authority, 403 Mass 1, 525 NE2d 662 (1988) and Alimenta (USA) Inc v Stauffer, 598 F Supp 934 (ND Ga 1984). 6. See Jeffrey J. Kroll and J. Ryan Potts, Revisiting Bulger v CTA: The Case for Admitting Transportation Company Investigation Results, 92 Ill Bar J 210 (April 2004). 7. Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence (7th ed 1999). 8. Id, see also Schaffner v Chicago & North Western Trans Co, 129 Ill 2d 1, 541 NE2d 643 (1989). 9. Cleary & Graham at (cited in note 7). 10. Id. 11. The concern of conveying an admission of negligence to the jury is well established in Illinois. See Hodges v Percival, 132 Ill 53, 56-57, 23 NE 423 (1890).
5 Page 5 of See Kellems v Schiele, 297 Ill App 388, 17 NE2d 604 (4th D 1938). 13. See Larson v Commonwealth Edison Co, 33 Ill 2d 316, 211 NE2d 247 (1965). 14. Sutkowski v Universal Marion Corp, 5 Ill App 3d 313, 281 NE2d 749 (3d D 1972). 15. See City of Taylorville v Stafford, 196 Ill 288, 63 NE 624 (1902). 16. Bulger at 106, 801 NE2d at Id at 107, 801 NE2d at Id. 19. Id at 110, 801 NE2d at Id. 21. Id. 22. Id at 122, 801 NE2d at Id at 117, 801 NE2d at 1139 ("the CTA's investigative opinions, conclusions, and follow-up actions are inadmissible as post-accident remedial measures"). 24. See Pearl at 504, 532 NE2d at Ill 2d 288, 657 NE2d 926 (1995); Bulger at 111, 801 NE2d at Herzog at 300, 657 NE2d at 932; Bulger at 111, 801 NE2d at Id at 114, 801 NE2d at Id at 113, 801 NE2d at Pearl at , 532 NE2d at Bulger at 115, 801 NE2d Judicial dicta are remarks or opinions deliberately passed upon by a court, though not essential to the disposition of the case. Cates v Cates, 156 Ill 2d 76, 80, 619 NE2d 715, 717 (1993). 31. Pearl at 503, 532 NE2d at Id. 33. If Pearl has any precedential force, it rests in the proposition that the subsequent remedial measure doctrine is lost on defendants with mandatory investigation policies. Indeed, there is analogous Illinois case law to support this reasoning. Nevertheless, this last vestige of Pearl should also be disregarded. Should this reasoning persevere, in this context, you will just see more instances of what happened with the CTA...companies changing from mandatory investigation policies (which should be judicially encouraged) to discretionary investigation policies to take themselves out of the Pearl grasp. 34. Bulger at 116, 801 NE2d at 1138.
6 Page 6 of Id. 36. See, for example, Complaint of Consolidation Coal Co, 123 F3d 126, 136 (3d Cir 1997). 37. Martel at 4-5, 525 NE2d at Wilson v Clark, 84 Ill 2d 186, 193, 417 NE2d 1322 (1981) Ill 2d 169, 186, 554 NE2d 1381, 1389 (1990). 40. Note, Robert H. Rhode, The Scope of the Reasonable Reliance Requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 703, 1988 U Ill L Rev 1069, (1988). Member Comments Illinois State Bar Association The Association for Illinois Lawyers
No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
More informationIn the Indiana Supreme Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE QUERREY & HARROW, LTD., SANDERS PIANOWSKI, LLP AND TRANSCONTINENTAL INS. CO. JAMES N. KOSMOND, AND ROBERT A. SANDERS GRETCHEN CEPEK
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationProduct Liability. Product Liability and Conflict of Laws
Product Liability By: James W. Ozog Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd Chicago. Product Liability and Conflict of Laws Townsend v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 1-05-4045, 2006 WL 3228815 (1 st Dist., November 8, 2006.)
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13 2114 For the Seventh Circuit BLYTHE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOHN A. DEANGELIS, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the
More informationFEATURE ARTICLE Evidence of Prior Injury. Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Injury Under the Same Part of the Body Rule
FEATURE ARTICLE Evidence of Prior Injury Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Injury Under the Same Part of the Body Rule By: Timothy J. Harris Broderick, Steiger, Maisel & Zupancic, Chicago I. Introduction
More information2015 IL App (3d) 130003-U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 130003-U Order filed
More informationDecember 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOUG HAMBELTON, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CANAL
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 7, 2012; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ORDERED PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 8, 2013; 10:00 A.M. Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-000990-MR RANDY PEZZAROSSI APPELLANT APPEAL
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationHow To Prove That A Person Is Not Responsible For A Cancer
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
More informationPROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM. Carl Tobias*
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated
More informationThe Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
More information[Cite as Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 125 Ohio St.3d 327, 2010-Ohio-1829.]
[Cite as Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 125 Ohio St.3d 327, 2010-Ohio-1829.] NEAL-PETTIT, APPELLEE, v. LAHMAN ET AL.; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. [Cite as Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 125 Ohio St.3d 327,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: BRYCE H. BENNETT, JR. ROBERT C. BRANDT Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KAREN NEISWINGER Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationNO. 5-09-0460 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 02/09/11. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. NO. 5-09-0460 IN THE APPELLATE COURT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:12-cv-02030-DDN Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY HAYDEN, ) individually and as plaintiff
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit DEC 8 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk RICHARD E. MYERS; SARAH MYERS, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, COUNTRY
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 16, 2009; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-002008-MR OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR AND WATERPROOFING, D/B/A OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR CO. OF
More informationCONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE 55.00 CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH GRANTED IN 2002 INTRODUCTION
CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE 55.00 CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH GRANTED IN 2002 INTRODUCTION Prior to February 14, 1995, workers injured in construction related settings had a number of avenues
More informationNO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation
NO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation [Involves Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol.), 10-504 Of The Courts And Judicial
More informationInternal Revenue Service Document Request to Department of Defense
Internal Revenue Service Document Request to Department of Defense The Defense Contract Audit Agency is not under a legal obligation, imposed by 26 U.S.C. 7602(a), to comply with an Internal Revenue Service
More information2015 IL App (3d) 140144-U. Order filed September 2, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 140144-U Order filed
More informationDel O'Roark, Loss Prevention Consultant, Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. of Ky.
The Kentucky Malpractice Statute of Limitations The Supreme Court Clears The Air Del O'Roark, Loss Prevention Consultant, Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. of Ky. KBA Bench & Bar, Vol. 58 No. 4, Fall 1994 In
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC2014-000424-001 DT 01/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Filed *** 01/26/2015 8:00 AM THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN STATE OF ARIZONA CLERK OF THE COURT J. Eaton Deputy GARY L SHUPE v. MONICA RENEE JONES (001) JEAN JACQUES CABOU
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNPUBLISHED July 1, 2004 v No. 245390 Livingston Circuit Court ARMADA CORPORATION HOSKINS LC No. 01-018840-CK MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-1910 Matthew Koob, Appellant, vs. Abdulahi Assair
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS T. PERRY HARMONY A. MAPPES Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALICE BARTANEN BLEVINS Salem, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA GREEN TREE
More informationChoice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims
Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims By David T. Biderman and Judith B. Gitterman Choice of law questions in asbestos litigation can be highly complex. The court determining choice of law must often
More informationIllinois Fund Doctrine
Illinois Fund Doctrine Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel By: Michael Todd Scott State Farm Insurance Company, Bloomington The Illinois Fund Doctrine, Can It Be Avoided? I. Introduction Since
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. In re Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company, Petitioners. Continental
More informationIn the Indiana Supreme Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Robert S. O Dell Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE W. F. Conour Jeffrey A. Hammond Timothy F. Devereux Indianapolis, Indiana In the Indiana Supreme Court No. 29S02-0908-CV-378
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL No. ED96759 INSURANCE CO., Respondent, Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County v. PAMELA C. COKE Honorable
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PULBICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KARL L. MULVANEY BARRY C. COPE BRIANA L. KOVAC Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE- PLAINTIFF ROBERT LODHOLTZ: CHARLES P. RICE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LORRIE LOGSDON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TURBINES,
More information2015 IL App (1st) 140761-U No. 1-14-0761 March 31, 2015 Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing May 12, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
2015 IL App (1st) 140761-U No. 1-14-0761 March 31, 2015 Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing May 12, 2015 SECOND DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-2390
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2390 MICHAEL C. WORSHAM, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT D. MAAS Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: THEODORE L. STACY Valparaiso, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
More informationCourt of Appeals Finds Coverage in Cyberspace and Criticizes Standard CGL Exclusions: Computer Corner, Inc. v. Fireman s Fund Insurance Company
Court of Appeals Finds Coverage in Cyberspace and Criticizes Standard CGL Exclusions: Computer Corner, Inc. v. Fireman s Fund Insurance Company by Tim L. Fields and Michelle A. Hernandez Modrall, Sperling,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session CONNIE REDMOND v. WALMART STORES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 13C3247 Joseph P. Binkley,
More information2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: OCTOBER 11, 2013; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-002074-MR KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.; KINDRED NURSING CENTERS LIMITED PARTNERSIP, D/B/A HILLCREST
More informationEvent Data Recorders and Their Role in. Automobile Accident Litigation
Event Data Recorders and Their Role in Automobile Accident Litigation by Jason A. Koch jkoch@jlolaw.com 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-8624 (651) 290-6500 I. Event Data
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Earl v. Decatur Public Schools Board of Education, 2015 IL App (4th) 141111 Appellate Court Caption SHARI L. EARL, as Parent and Guardian of A.B., a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationrequires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1814 UNDISCLOSED RECORDING OF THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS In this hypothetical, a Criminal Defense Lawyer represents A who is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled
More informationNo. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133947 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADA DEVELOPMENT,
More informationNo. 1-10-2072 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). SIXTH DIVISION JUNE 30, 2011 IN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More informationSAFETY REVIEW NOT SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT
SAFETY REVIEW NOT SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2008 James C. Kozlowski In contracting for personal services, an architect's duty depends on the particular agreement entered into
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 12-3901 For the Seventh Circuit CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
More information2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st 152359-U SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016 No. 1-15-2359 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationACCIDENT REVIEW POLICIES: HELP OR HINDRANCE?
ACCIDENT REVIEW POLICIES: HELP OR HINDRANCE? DARRELL G-M NOGA MICHAEL J. MERRICK Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, L.L.P. 972.980.3490 (direct) dnoga@feesmith.com 972.980.3282 (direct) mmerrick@feesmith.com
More informationJUSTICE CAHILL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices J. Gordon and McBride concurred in the judgment and opinion.
SIXTH DIVISION April 8, 2011 No. 1-09-2498 ILLINOIS BETA CHAPTER OF SIGMA PHI EPSILON FRATERNITY ALUMNI BOARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from
More informationFILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150225-U NO. 4-15-0225
More informationATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA. Case Summary. truck driver by Appellant-Defendant R&L Carriers, an Ohio limited liability
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Stephen L. Williams Kyle T. Ring Williams Law Firm Terre Haute, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Robert B. Thornburg Maggie L. Smith Timothy L. Karns Frost Brown Todd LLC Indianapolis,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SCOTT E. YAHNE Efron Efron & Yahne, P.C. Hammond, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT F. PETERS BROOKE S. SHREVE Lucas Holcomb & Medrea, LLP Merrillville, Indiana
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1116. September Term, 1996 JANE LUCKEY ROBERT O. KAN. Eyler, Thieme, Sonner, JJ.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1116 September Term, 1996 JANE LUCKEY v. ROBERT O. KAN Eyler, Thieme, Sonner, JJ. Opinion by Thieme, J. Filed: April 1, 1997 Appellant Jane Luckey
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationHow To Preserve Evidence
Failing to Preserve Critical Evidence Spoliation sanctions and how they can impact your case At some point, most litigation attorneys will be confronted with the problem of their client or the opposing
More information2012 IL App (1st) 111507-U. No. 1-11-1507 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2012 IL App (1st) 111507-U SIXTH DIVISION November 30, 2012 No. 1-11-1507 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
More informationAGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 Cite as 20 Neb. App. 597. N.W.2d
AGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea, he requested that the court take judicial notice of a six-page portion of the U.S. statutes. The court took judicial
More information2015 IL App (3d) 140820-U. Order filed July 17, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2015 IL App (3d) 140820-U Order
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationEVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS
EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS By: Stephen J. Heine Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria The Laws of Intestate Succession Permit Only Descendants to Share in the Proceeds of a Wrongful Death Suit Where the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GINGER STEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2013 v No. 310257 Wayne Circuit Court HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 08-126633-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationPETER L. OSTERMILLER Attorney at Law Kentucky Home Life Building Eighteenth Floor 239 South Fifth Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 www.ploesq.
PETER L. OSTERMILLER Attorney at Law Kentucky Home Life Building Eighteenth Floor 239 South Fifth Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 www.ploesq.com Telephone: (502) 736-8100 Fax: (502) 736-8129 E-mail:
More informationHow To Get A Summary Judgment In A Well Service Case In Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL
PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER MITCHELL A. STEIN and STEIN LAW, P.C., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MARK TROXLER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 28, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationNo. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2012 IL App (1st 1111354-U SIXTH DIVISION April 20, 2012 No. 1-11-1354 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationPatrick D. Heller, Esq.*
IN THE WAKE OF THE ZIMMER DECISION, CAN A TORT PLAINTIFF INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AWARD AT THE TIME OF TRIAL? Patrick D. Heller, Esq.* Recently, in the published decision of Villanueva
More informationAn action brought against an attorney alleging negligence in the practice of
5.51 LEGAL MALPRACTICE (Approved 6/79) CHARGE 5.51A Page 1 of 9 A. General Duty Owing An action brought against an attorney alleging negligence in the practice of law is referred to as a malpractice action.
More informationF I L E D June 29, 2012
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
More informationSilencing the Dead: Invoking and Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Dead Man s Act
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 23, Number 1 (23.1.41) Medical Malpractice By: Dina L. Torrisi and Edna L. McLain HeplerBroom
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 08/13/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554
More informationNO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of
NO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT CHARLES DALLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. AMEREN CIPS, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. ) ) ) ) )
More informationCriminal Lawyer Tips For Successfully Running Appeals
TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS By Henry J. Bemporad Deputy Federal Public Defender Western District of Texas Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No one
More informationDetermining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
More information