Regala v. Rush North Shore Medical Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that IPI Civil 3d No. 105.01 “properly states the law”
• holding that IPI Civil (1990) No. 105.01 “properly states the law”
• “[e]xperts must be made aware by their attorney of the importance that their opinions at trial are consistent with their pretrial disclosures”
• redirect examination of expert witness went beyond the scope of cross-examination by eliciting new testimony previously undisclosed under Rule 213, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial
• \[e]xperts must be made aware by their attorney of the importance that their opinions at trial are consistent with their pretrial disclosures\
• redirect examination of expert witness went beyond the scope of cross-examination by eliciting new testimony previously undisclosed under Rule 213, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).