Legal Opinion

Jack v. Pugeda

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 7, 1989No. 5-87-0551PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chapman

The questions before this court are relatively simple ones:

Did the trial court err in refusing the plaintiffs’ motion for continuance and did it err in denying the plaintiffs’ post-trial motion based upon its refusal to allow the continuance?

While the questions are simple, their resolution requires this court to balance the supreme court’s interests in the prompt disposition of cases with its equal interest in ensuring that the ends of justice are attained. In view of the circumstances presented in this appeal we reluctantly reverse and remand for a new trial. The use of the word reluctantly…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Chakos v. Illinois State Toll Highway AuthorityAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
  2. Kincl v. Hycel, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
  3. Atlee Electric Co. v. Johnson Construction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1973
  4. Brown v. SexnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  5. Parker v. NewmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cole Taylor Bank v. CorriganAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  2. Flanagan v. RedondoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  3. Schumacher v. Continental Air Transport Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1990
  4. Flanagan v. RedondoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  5. In re S.B.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2015

2 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