Riley v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois

Riley v. City of Chicago

208 Ill. App. 260

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 30, 1917

DocketGen. No. 23,144

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Ill. App. 260 (Riley v. City of Chicago) 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

Riley v. City of Chicago, 208 Ill. App. 260 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. New tut at., § 58*—when granted because of inadequacy of verdict. Contrary to the common-law rule, under the modem rule a new trial may be awarded where the verdict is grossly inadequate for the same reasons as where the verdict is excessive. 2. Negligence, § 250*—when verdict is not against manifest weight of evidence. In an action to recover for personal injuries, evidence examined and held not to show that the verdict was manifestly against the weight thereof.

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

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. New tut at., § 58*—when granted because of inadequacy of verdict. Contrary to the common-law rule, under the modem rule a new trial may be awarded where the verdict is grossly inadequate for the same reasons as where the verdict is excessive. 2. Negligence, § 250*—when verdict is not against manifest weight of evidence. In an action to recover for personal injuries, evidence examined and held not to show that the verdict was manifestly against the weight thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Ill. App. 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-city-of-chicago-illappct-1917.