Sanitary District v. Cullerton
Citations
- 147 Ill. 385
- 35 N.E. 723
Syllabus
<p>1. Eminent domain—personal view as evidence on question of compensation. In fixing t-lie compensation for private property for public use, it is competent, under our statute, for the jury to consider what may be presented to their minds by and through their personal view -and inspection of the premises, as the facts and circumstances brought to their knowledge through the medium of witnesses who testify in the -case.</p> <p>2. Same—new trial on ground of excessive damages. On a proceeding to condemn land, if the verdict is so palpably against the weight of evidence that it can be said there is no evidence in the record on which the jury may fairly predicate the same, the trial court should not hesitate to set it aside. But in the absence of anything showing that the verdict is the result of passion, prejudice or undue influence, the court will not be justified in disturbing it.</p> <p>3. New triad—affidavits of jurors to impeach their verdict. Affidavits of jurors can not be received for the purpose of showing cause for setting aside their verdict. They are not admissible to show the conduct of others than the jurors, or improper conduct in arriving at a verdict by the jurors themselves, such as that it was obtained by average or by lot, or in any other improper manner.</p> <p>4. Same—improper conduct of jurors. The courts are clothed with ample power to punish the misconduct of jurors, and of others in their presence, and no court ought to hesitate to impose adequate penalties and set aside verdicts where there has been conduct by which the jury may have been improperly influenced, or the verdict is the result of improper conduct on the part of jurors.</p> <p>5. Same—jurors drinking intoxicating liquors. In a proceeding to condemn land, some of the jurors, after they had finished viewing the premises, drank intoxicating liquor, but it did not appear that any of them became intoxicated, or that the persons furnishing the liquor were in anywise interested in the e
Judges: Shops
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. HolmesIllinois Supreme Court· 1978-01-20· cited 140×
- State v. AthornSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1966-01-24· cited 51×
- People v. KingIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-12-21· cited 51×
- People v. NitzAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-03-28· cited 49×
- State v. MarchandSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1978-09-05· cited 48×
- Hayner v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-12-22· cited 38×
- People v. StrauseIllinois Supreme Court· 1919-12-17· cited 35×
- Loucks v. PierceAppellate Court of Illinois· 1950-07-13· cited 30×
- Department of Public Works & Buildings v. ChristensenIllinois Supreme Court· 1962-05-25· cited 30×
- Joynt v. BarnesAppellate Court of Illinois· 1979-04-19· cited 27×
- McNally v. WalkowskiNevada Supreme Court· 1969-12-18· cited 26×
- Armsby v. Grays Harbor Commercial Co.Oregon Supreme Court· 1912-04-16· cited 20×
- Schiff v. Oak Park Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1956-03-06· cited 15×
- Ewing v. LunnSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1908-03-07· cited 11×
- People v. NitzAppellate Court of Illinois· 2004-11-10· cited 10×
- Marzen v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-04-18· cited 10×
- Schwamb Lumber Co. v. SchaarAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-05-06· cited 9×
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. LundahlIllinois Supreme Court· 1899-12-18· cited 7×
- City of Chicago v. SaldmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-02-21· cited 7×
- Johnson v. SeelNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-11-26· cited 6×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.