Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Chevalier v. Chicago Transit Authority

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 20, 1949No. Gen. No. 44,255Published

1Concurrence

Niemeyer, J.,

specially concurring: I concur in the result but not for the reasons assigned.

On March 20, 1947, defendant served notice of the filing of a “written motion for a new trial non obstante veredicto,” to which was attached a paper entitled “Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and in the alternative, Motion for a New Trial,” which is a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the usual form, and then an alternative motion asking the court “to set aside the verdict returned by the jury in this cause and the judgment entered therein, and to grant a new trial” in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roedler v. Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1935
  2. The People v. DownenIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Cochran v. KollerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1941
  4. Morse Co. v. EatonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API