Jones v. DHR Cambridge Homes, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that, based on section 2-1117, “in order for [a nonparty] to be included on the verdict form, it must have been named as a party” by the defendant
• determining that, based on section 2- 71 No. 1-12-3663 1117, “in order for [a nonparty] to be included on the verdict form, it must have been named as a party” by the defendant
• determining that, based on section 2- 1117, “in order for [a nonparty] to be included on the verdict form, it must have been named as a 70 No. 1-12-3663 party” by the defendant
• a reviewing court will grant reversal based on evidentiary rulings only when the error was substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the trial
• “ ‘The grant or denial of a motion for [a] directed verdict is reviewed de novo’ ”
• \ 'The grant or denial of a motion for [a] directed verdict is reviewed de novo' \ (quoting Kim v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc., 353 Ill. App. 3d 444, 460 (2004))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).