No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
People v. Clayton, 302 Ill.App.3d 220 (2d Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>8) ....................<strong>99</strong><br />
Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill.App.3d 111 (5th Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>4) ................<strong>99</strong><br />
United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>1),<br />
amended, 957 F.2d 301 (7th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>2) ................................<strong>99</strong><br />
1 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 12 (5th ed. 1<strong>99</strong>9) .......................100<br />
Wakeford v. Rodehouse Restaurants, 223 Ill.App.3d 31<br />
(5th Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>1), aff’d, 154 Ill.2d 543, (1<strong>99</strong>2) ..........................100<br />
Haas v. Abrahamson, 705 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D. Wis. 1989), aff’d,<br />
910 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>0) .......................................100<br />
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Baymon, 732 So.2d 262<br />
(Miss. 1<strong>99</strong>9) ....................................................102<br />
Wernowsky v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 106 Ill.2d 49 (1985) .............103<br />
Plooy v. Paryani, 275 Ill.App.3d 1074 (1st Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>5) ..................103<br />
MICHAEL H. GRAHAM, CLEARY & GRAHAM’S HANDBOOK <strong>OF</strong><br />
ILL<strong>IN</strong>OIS EVIDENCE (7th ed. 1<strong>99</strong>9) ...................................103<br />
People v. <strong>No</strong>vak, 163 Ill.2d 93 (1<strong>99</strong>4) ................................104<br />
People v. Houser, 305 Ill.App.3d 384 (4th Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>9) ...................105<br />
Hubbard v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 83 Ill.App.3d 272<br />
(5th Dist. 1980) .................................................105<br />
Swajian v. General Motors Corp., 916 F.2d 31 (1st Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>0) ............105<br />
Rotolo v. Digital Equip. Corp., 150 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>8) ..............106<br />
F. State Farm’s Evidence Disproved Plaintiffs’ Claims<br />
Of Universal Inferiority, Confirming That The Only<br />
Way The Case Could Be Fairly Tried Was By<br />
Looking At The Facts Of Each Individual Repair ..............106<br />
Hastings v. Gulledge, 272 Ill.App.3d 861 (5th Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>5) ................106<br />
-xii-