Andrew Wilson v. City of Chicago, Jon Burge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was an error to admit details of the crimes underlying Plaintiff’s incarceration
• holding that the opinion testimony of a pathologist was properly ex- cluded because a “pathologist, which is to say an expert on postmortems” is not an expert on the effects of electro- shock treatments on the human body and psyche
• reversing an initial jury verdict in defendants' favor because the district judge failed to control inappropriate use of Andrew's criminal history
• explaining that “failing to eliminate a practice cannot be equated to approving it”
• admitting reporter's testimony about witness’s reputation among people with whom he had worked and among his family because “a community doesn't have to be stable in order to qualify under the rule”
• discussing, in the trademark context, that “[e]vidence 7 of loss of control over business reputation and damage to goodwill could constitute 8 irreparable harm”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).