<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HUNDLEY LAW GROUP &#187; hearsay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hundleylaw.com/tag/hearsay/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com</link>
	<description>Trial and Appellate Litigation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:55:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>People v. Hammonds</title>
		<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/02/people-v-hammonds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/02/people-v-hammonds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HLG</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Notebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois Appellate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1st Dist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearsay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hundleylaw.com/?p=89</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>People v. Hammonds, No. 1-08-0194 (February 11, 2010). In a criminal case, appellate court seems to have upheld the “Cook County Rule” that it is not error for the trial court to have allowed police officers to testify about radio messages they received from other officers, as the other officers were also trial witnesses.</p>


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/1stDistrict/February/1080194.pdf">People v. Hammonds</a>, No. 1-08-0194 (February 11, 2010). In a criminal case, appellate court seems to have upheld the “Cook County Rule” that it is not error for the trial court to have allowed police officers to testify about radio messages they received from other officers, as the other officers were also trial witnesses.</p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif;"><br />
</span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/02/people-v-hammonds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agins v. Schonberg</title>
		<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/01/agins-v-schonberg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/01/agins-v-schonberg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HLG</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Notebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois Appellate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1st Dist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dead Man's Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearsay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[med mal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hundleylaw.com/?p=64</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Agins v. Schonberg, No. 1-08-3207 (1st Dist. Dec. 23, 2009). Counsel for estate of deceased physician who was suing another physician for malpractice waived the protections of the Dead Man&#8217;s Act (which prevents a living party from testifying to certain things that occurred during the life of, and in the presence of, the deceased) by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://eservices.isba.org/12all/lt/t_go.php?i=3702&amp;e=ODkwOTYwNw==&amp;l=-http--www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2009/1stDistrict/December/1083207.pdf" target="_blank">Agins v. Schonberg</a>, No. 1-08-3207 (1st Dist. Dec. 23, 2009). Counsel for estate of deceased physician who was suing another physician for malpractice waived the protections of the Dead Man&#8217;s Act (which prevents a living party from testifying to certain things that occurred during the life of, and in the presence of, the deceased) by eliciting testimony from witnesses about details of decedents visit to on defendant physician&#8217;s office.</p>
<p>However, the decedent&#8217;s widow was prevented from offering the hearsay testimony as to why decedent decided against treating with one of the defendant doctors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/01/agins-v-schonberg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

