Legal Opinion

Hiscott v. Peters

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 16, 2001No. 2 — 00—0893PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rapp

Defendants Ronald Weidner (Ronald Weidner or Mr. Weidner) and Ronald Weidner, Inc. (collectively Weidner), appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, George and June Hiscott, following a jury trial. It is the contention of Weidner that (1) the trial court erred in admitting the opinion testimony of a reconstruction expert; (2) the trial court erred in excluding circumstantial evidence that defendant Ross Peters was using his cellular telephone immediately prior to the accident; (3) the trial court erred in submitting itemized verdict forms allowing the jury to return separate damages…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Doe v. Calumet CityIllinois Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Corgan v. MuehlingIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass'n v. Hoffman Group Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Dyback v. WeberIllinois Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Parks v. KownackiIllinois Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
  2. Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & WeaverIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Thornton v. GARCINIIllinois Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Turner v. WilliamsAppellate Court of Illinois · 2001
  5. Bachman v. General Motors Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2002

48 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