Skip to main content
· 6/18/1986

Thrall Car Manufacturing Co. v. Lindquist

Citations

  • 495 N.E.2d 1132
  • 145 Ill. App. 3d 712
  • 99 Ill. Dec. 397
  • 1986 Ill. App. LEXIS 2529

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that “[a] reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.”
  • stating that “A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.”
  • “A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.”
  • “The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.”
  • “The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.”
  • “The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McGILLICUDDY

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.