Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

King v. Clemons

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 17, 1994No. 5-92-0078Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rarick

Although not specifically addressed by the majority in its opinion, I agree the rules of discovery are broad enough to accommodate plaintiff’s notice to preserve. And, because the rules recognize notices such as plaintiff’s, I therefore reluctantly concur in upholding the sanction imposed in this instance. (See American Family Insurance Co. v. Village Pontiac-GMC, Inc. (1992), 223 Ill. App. 3d 624, 626-28, 585 N.E.2d 1115, 1118-19; Graves v. Daley (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 35, 38-39, 526 N.E.2d 679, 681-82.) I believe the more appropriate method, however, would have been to secure a protective…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Family Insurance v. Village Pontiac-GMC, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  2. Graves v. DaleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
  3. Wille v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991
  4. Klick v. R. D. Werner Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API