Section Newsletters

Articles From John M. Stalmack

Closing argument: Some topics to consider By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2014 A useful article to guide you when crafting your closing arguments.
Partial use of depositions: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2012 In essence, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) is a codification of the common law rule of completeness as it applies to depositions
The admissibility of other acts or occurrences By John M. Stalmack Tort Law, September 2009 An analysis of those instances in which the admissibility of other occurrences or other acts may be admissible in a given case.
Veracity By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, July 2008 Unlike substantive character evidence in a civil or criminal case, the character trait for veracity discussed in this article only concerns either impeachment or rehabilitation.
Admissions By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, August 2007 The editors of Trial Briefs are grateful to John Stalmack for submitting this thorough discussion of admissions.
Admissions By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, July 2007 The editors of Trial Briefs are grateful to John Stalmack for submitting this thorough discussion of admissions.
Cross-examination of a medical expert witness regarding the expert’s personal opinion or personal practice By John M. Stalmack Tort Law, July 2007 In a medical negligence action in which expert testimony is required to meet the burden of proof, the expert must establish the standard of care.
State of mind By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, September 2005 A perplexing evidentiary concept is that of a person's state of mind. Hearsay evidence is testimony given in court, either orally or in writing, of a statement made out of court offered to show the truth of the matter asserted in that statement.
Opening statement By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2004 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 235 governs the opening statement.1 As soon as the jury is impaneled, the attorney for the plaintiff may make an opening statement.
Subsequent remedial measure—An update By John M. Stalmack Tort Law, April 2004 Evidence of a subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence on the part of any person being charged with negligent conduct.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author