Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wieneke v. Weitekamp

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 27, 1992No. 5—90—0277Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Harrison

I concur in the majority’s disposition of plaintiff’s claim against Bernard Weitekamp, but dissent from its affirmance of the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Nokomis Township and Montgomery County. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Nokomis Township on the theory that plaintiff had failed to offer sufficient evidence to “tip the scales” in favor of his theory of recovery. As this court recently held, however, a hearing on a summary judgment motion is not a minitrial. The party opposing the motion is not required to try its case at that time. (Hall v. Stamm (1991), 208 Ill.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Russell v. SubbiahAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  3. Fletcher v. BoxxAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
  4. West Suburban Mass Transit District v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991
  5. Hall v. StammAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API