Appellate Court of Illinois· 7/20/1998

Ashpole v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.

Citations

697 N.E.2d 1238
297 Ill. App. 3d 725
232 Ill. Dec. 308

How courts have described this case

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

where defense counsel planned on calling eyewitness but failed to disclose her, counsel acted in bad faith; trial court abused its discretion in allowing witness’s testimony
where defendant violated Rule 213 by failing to identify witness in interrogatory answers or supplements, court erred in allowing witness’s testimony; appropriate sanction was to bar witness from testifying on remand
where defense counsel planned on calling eyewitness but failed to disclose her, counsel acted in bad faith; trial court abused its discretion in allowing witness’s testimony
where defendant violated Rule 213 by failing to identify witness in interrogatory answers or supplements, court erred in allowing witness’s testimony; appropriate sanction was to bar witness from testifying on remand
the mid-trial disclosure of witness was sufficiently prejudicial to necessitate new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Inglis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Ashpole v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Ashpole v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.
Appellate Court of Illinois· 1998-07-20

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.