Hanson v. Nolting

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hanson v. Nolting

182 Ill. App. 546

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedAugust 2, 1913

DocketGen. No. 5,795

StatusPublished

This text of 182 Ill. App. 546 (Hanson v. Nolting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanson v. Nolting, 182 Ill. App. 546 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Municipal corporations, § 917*—when temporary obstruction not justified. Temporary obstruction of a street is not justified by the necessities of the person who obstructs the street when such obstruction is not reasonable with reference to the public. 3. Municipal corporatlons, § 1062*—when pedestrian not negligent in failing to see obstruction on sidewalk. Evidence held sufficient to sustain finding of jury that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to see an obstruction on the sidewalk, over which she fell and was injured. 4. Appeal and error, § 608*—what essential to preserve objection for excessive verdict. Objection that verdict is excessive is waived when not included in motion for a new trial or motion in arrest of judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Municipal corporations, § 917*—when temporary obstruction not justified. Temporary obstruction of a street is not justified by the necessities of the person who obstructs the street when such obstruction is not reasonable with reference to the public. 3. Municipal corporatlons, § 1062*—when pedestrian not negligent in failing to see obstruction on sidewalk. Evidence held sufficient to sustain finding of jury that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to see an obstruction on the sidewalk, over which she fell and was injured. 4. Appeal and error, § 608*—what essential to preserve objection for excessive verdict. Objection that verdict is excessive is waived when not included in motion for a new trial or motion in arrest of judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-nolting-illappct-1913.