PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues that 1) the successor judge, who was not present at trial and who was therefore unable to observe the alleged prejudicial conduct of appellee's attorney, erred in denying appellant's post-trial motions; 2) the trial court erred in allowing appellee to pose a hypothetical question based on facts allegedly not in evidence; and 3) the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no merit in these claims, Ed Ricke...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
