Skip to main content
· 6/10/2011

Kindel v. Tennis

Citations

  • 949 N.E.2d 1119
  • 409 Ill. App. 3d 1138

How courts have described this case

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

  • where there were questions of fact as to whether caring for bull was part of plaintiff farmhand’s job, summary judgment on Animal Control Act claim was improper
  • where there were questions of fact as to whether caring for bull was part of plaintiff farmhand's job, summary judgment on Animal Control Act claim was improper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spomer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.