132 Ill. App. 3d 90 - Ralston v. Plogger

How this case has been cited

4 federal appellate · 61 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

MILLS, J.,

¶1concurs.

JUSTICE TRAPP,

¶2concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶3I concur in the opinion insofar as it reverses the order of the trial court granting a new trial upon the authority of Bullard v. Barnes (1983), 112 Ill. App. 3d 384, 445 N.E.2d 485.

¶4I dissent from the opinion insofar as it proceeds to review and decide the several issues which were raised and argued in the trial court in the motion for a new trial but which remain in the trial court without a ruling by the trial judge.

¶5It seems unnecessary to again insert the full text of section 2— 1202(f) of the Civil Practice Law and Supreme Court Rule 366(b)(2)(iv) and (v), which have been quoted in the principal opinion.

¶6The plain text of section 2 — 1202(f) imposes upon the trial court a duty to “rule” upon all claims for relief sought in the motion for a new trial. The powers of review in the appellate court provided in Supreme Court Rule 366(b)(2)(iv) and (v), in turn are directed to review of “all rulings of the trial court.” It is patent that other than the granting of a new trial upon the Bullard issue, there are no “rulings” of the trial court.

¶7This court has determined to reverse the order granting a new trial for the reason stated by the trial judge but to proceed to review other grounds for seeking a new trial which remain without ruling in the trial court. To take the latter step without remand to the trial court to complete its rulings effectually dismantles both the provisions of the Civil Practice Law and the Supreme Court Rules, and signals to the circuit courts that this court will not require them to follow the Supreme Court Rules and the Civil Practice Law and that for practical purposes this court will overlook them.

¶8We note that in this case one of the issues presented in the trial court upon the motion was whether the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. This is an issue generally, if not peculiarly, appropriate for consideration by the trial court.

¶9The reversal should be accompanied by remandment to the trial court for a ruling upon the grounds for a new trial which have not heretofore been ruled upon.