finds that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis presented at trial with which a reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ conduct was “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society.” McGrath, 126 Ill.2d at 82, 533 N.E.2d at 809, 127 Ill.Dec. at 727. IY. CONCLUSION Ergo, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is ALLOWED. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of all Defendants and against all Plaintiffs on each Count in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. CASE CLOSED. 1 . The police believed that the attacker used a metal forming stake to beat Bridgmon. When the police arrived, Bridgmon was unconscious; he had nine 1247 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) 9 . "[I]f a case involves a question of
holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists holding that noncompliance with mandatory requirement of search warrant statute designed to ensure that warrants are issued upon reliable information required that information provided by informants be ignored in determining probable cause holding that eyewitness accounts and an officers observations established probable cause holding probable cause exists based upon information received from a reliable eyewitness