7 Ill. App. 2d 21 - Sims v. Chicago Transit Authority’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “131 “Generally, presumptions upon review favor judgment, and the burden is upon the appellant to point out the errors, if any, calling for its reversal. 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Murphy, 325 Ill. App. 392, 399 . There is a presumption that a general verdict under several counts or issues, some of which are good and some bad or unsupported by any evidence, is based on the evidence supporting the good counts or issues. Scott v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 245 Ill. 460, 466-8 , and cases there cited. See also Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Warner, 108 Ill. 538, 548-9 . This presumption obtains apparently even when an instruction on the unsupported counts or issues is submitted to the jury. See Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Foster, 226 Ill. 288, 290 ; and cf. Schlauder v. Chicago & Southern Traction Co., 253 Ill. 154, 162 . {£ “. . . Where the reviewing court can see the case has been fairly tried, and that the judgment is clearly right upon the facts, and that consequently another trial must necessarily result the same way, it will not reverse on the ground that an erroneous issue has been submitted to the jury. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Ill. App. 2d 118 - Barango v. E. L. Hedstrom Coal Co.

2. ““The rule ° ° ° is that unless the reviewing court can say that on retrial the result could not be otherwise, the cause must be remanded toward the end that the party bringing error may secure substantial justice. Where the reviewing court can see the case has been fairly tried, and that the judgment is clearly right upon the facts, and that consequently another trial must necessarily result the same way, it will not reverse on the ground that an erroneous issue has been submitted to the jury. Quite a different rule prevails where the case is a close one on the facts. In such a case where the evidence is about evenly balanced, the reviewing court will reverse for any substantial error in the trial court on a material question that may have turned the scale in favor of the successful party. [Citations.]” ( 7 Ill. App. 2d 21 , 29, 129 N.E.2d 23, 26-27 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 76 Ill. App. 3d 683 - L. D. Brinkman & Company-Midwest v. National Sponge Cushion Co.

3. ““It is elementary that every party has the right to have the law applicable to his case stated fairly, clearly, distinctly and conveyed to the jury with substantial accuracy so that it may not be misled to the prejudice of the party (citing cases). He has the right to have the jury instructed upon his theories of recovery or defense (citing cases). Failure to give a party these rights which are tantamount to a fair and just trial, whenever the case is close upon its facts or the evidence conflicting, and the failure is material, requires that the verdict be set aside. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 Ill. App. 2d 1 - Handell v. Chicago Transit Authority