Garcez v. Michel
Illinois Appellate Court
668 N.E.2d 194 (1996)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
April Garcez (plaintiff), through her guardian, sued Mercy Hospital and Medical Center (Mercy), Keith Knapp, Fritz Michel, Stewart Kernes, Harshavadan Vyas, and Erlinda Azcona in trial court to recover damages arising from negligence in connection with April’s birth. Prior to trial, Garcez entered into a settlement agreement with Mercy, also releasing Kernes, Vyas, and Azcona (collectively, the dismissed defendants) from the suit. The settlement agreement did not contain a clause requiring the dismissed defendants to testify. The suit proceeded against Knapp and Michel (defendants). Garcez moved to bar evidence of the settlement agreement at trial. At a hearing, the trial court denied Garcez’s motion and allowed Knapp and Michel to disclose the settlement agreement to the jury. The trial court did not make a threshold determination of whether the agreement had the potential to bias the witnesses’ testimony. Vyas and Azcona testified at trial. During closing arguments, Knapp and Michel implied that Garcez had already received sufficient compensation from the settlement and that the dismissed defendants settled due to being guilty. The jury returned a verdict for Knapp and Michel. Garcez appealed, alleging that the trial court improperly denied Garcez’s motion to bar any reference to the settlement agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Theis, J.)
Dissent (Cahill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
