Legal Opinion · Dissent

Emberton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 29, 1976No. 76-19Published

1DissentJustice Barry

I dissent. I agree with the reasoning of Justices Carter and Goldenhersh in McGovern v. Standish, 33 Ill. App. 3d 717, 341 N.E.2d 739, and McGovern v. Standish, 65 Ill. 2d 54, 1134 N.E.2d 357, respectively.

Further and specifically, McGovern, so heavily relied upon by the majority, does not involve an owner as defendant, in addition to an architect defendant. Justice Crebs’ majority opinion for the Supreme Court while reciting that an architect should not be required to comply with the onerous burdens of the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 40, par. 60 et seq.), did not, in my…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McGovern v. StandishIllinois Supreme Court · 1976
  2. McGovern v. StandishAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API