{
  "id": 3468508,
  "name": "ROBERT DEAN HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER C. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee (Edwin E. Neblett et al., Defendants)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1987-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201487\u20140140",
  "first_page": "466",
  "last_page": "468",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 Ill. App. 3d 466"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "299 N.E.2d 442",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2856467,
        2854284
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "811"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0808-01",
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0808-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "441 N.E.2d 318",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3097891
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166-67"
        },
        {
          "page": "166"
        },
        {
          "page": "167"
        },
        {
          "page": "167"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/92/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2602335274195025e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6122912957473582
    },
    "sha256": "c52f84d6f89a4db4c5761a72b3ea9f4b3376eacd51b02d074f001ae58dd1493c",
    "simhash": "1:033218cad47fcb96",
    "word_count": 663
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:58.396413+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT DEAN HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER C. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee (Edwin E. Neblett et al., Defendants)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE REINHARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing the voluntary dismissal pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1009 of the Civil Practice Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1009) by plaintiff, Robert Dean Howell, of his medical malpractice action against defendant Walter C. Thompson, M.D., the circuit court of Du Page County entered an order requiring plaintiff to reimburse defendant in the amount of $874.15 for defendant\u2019s costs, including $855.15 in expenses incurred in the taking of evidence depositions.\nPlaintiff appeals raising the single issue of whether evidence deposition expenses are allowable as costs under Supreme Court Rule 208(d) (107 Ill. 2d R. 208(d)) upon the voluntary dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s suit.\nOur resolution of this issue is controlled by our supreme court\u2019s decision in Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 157, 441 N.E.2d 318. There, the court held under circumstances similar to those here that Rule 208(d), authorizing the trial court to tax costs, in its discretion, cannot be used for the assessment of a defendant\u2019s deposition expenses against a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his case before trial. (92 Ill. 2d 157, 166-67, 441 N.E.2d 318.) Defendant contends, however, that Galowich did not specifically address whether the expenses of evidence depositions could be taxed as costs to a plaintiff upon a voluntary dismissal. Arguing that Illinois distinguishes between discovery depositions and evidence depositions (see 107 Ill. 2d R. 202; Slatten v. City of Chicago (1973), 12 Ill. App. 3d 808, 811, 299 N.E.2d 442), defendant cites, in support of his contention, a portion of the Galowich opinion which notes that litigants must bear their own litigation and trial-preparation expenses, which include the expenses of \u201cdiscovery depositions.\u201d Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 157, 166, 441 N.E.2d 318.\nThis reference in Galowich, however, is the only instance in its holding in which the court refers specifically to discovery depositions, and then the language of the court is only illustrative that the use of discovery depositions is primarily a technique of trial preparation, the expense of which is ordinarily not recoverable as costs incurred at trial. The rest of the rationale and holding in the opinion refers simply to \u201cdepositions.\u201d We cannot ignore the plain language of the court\u2019s holding that \u201cRule 208(d) cannot be authority for the assessment of a defendant\u2019s deposition expenses against a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his case before trial.\u201d (92 Ill. 2d 157, 167, 441 N.E.2d 318.) Although the court\u2019s opinion recognized the two different types of depositions, its holding did not purport to create a different rule applicable to evidence depositions, and we cannot do so here.\nDefendant also argues that the Galowich opinion does not require that the deposition actually be used at trial before the expense can be taxed as costs. This interpretation defies the actual holding in the case, which states that \u201c[s]ince the test for when the expense of a deposition is taxable as costs is its necessary use at trial, it follows that Rule 208(d) cannot be authority for the assessment of a defendant\u2019s deposition expenses against a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his case before trial.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (92 Ill. 2d 157, 167, 441 N.E.2d 318.) The use of the deposition at trial is what authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to tax that expense as costs pursuant to Rule 208(d).\nAs the circuit court here improperly taxed the deposition expenses as costs upon plaintiff\u2019s voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, the portion of the judgment below allowing reimbursement of $855.15 in deposition expenses is reversed.\nReversed in part; affirmed in part.\nLINDBERG, P.J., and NASH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE REINHARD"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gregory R. Sun, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Edward R. Duncan, Jr., and Adrianna K. Liber, both of O\u2019Reilly, Cunningham, Norton & Mancini, of Wheaton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT DEAN HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER C. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee (Edwin E. Neblett et al., Defendants).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201487\u20140140\nOpinion filed October 15, 1987.\nGregory R. Sun, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward R. Duncan, Jr., and Adrianna K. Liber, both of O\u2019Reilly, Cunningham, Norton & Mancini, of Wheaton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0466-01",
  "first_page_order": 488,
  "last_page_order": 490
}