 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Jackson v. Reid, NO. 4-05-0378,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice action, where the only connection with McLean County was that tests were ordered from there, McLean County was improper venue. Under the 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-101 transactional test, every aspect of the theories put forth by patient and parents occurred in Peoria County. Tests themselves did not form basis of action.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., NOS. 4-04-0558, 4-04-0868 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by failing to issue an injunction against a petroleum corporation as requested by the State in proceedings against the corporation involving oil spills since injunctive relief was available under 225 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 725/11 and a clear pattern of at least five monthly spills existed that required such relief.
|
|||||
| Price v. Hickory Point Bank & Trust, NO. 4-05-0532,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a guardian showed violations of Decatur, Ill., Mun. Code ch. 7040 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 745.113, 745.107, discussion of a landlord's knowledge of the alleged statutory violations was irrelevant; the trial court violated Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 23 by permitting defendants' counsel to cite an unpublished order of the Illinois Appellate Court.
|
|||||
| Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C., No. 100925,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a chamber of commerce's amicus curiae brief essentially restated arguments advanced by one of the litigants, who was represented by two large, well-respected law firms, pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 345, the brief was of no benefit to the court or the adversarial process; therefore, the chamber's motion to file the brief was denied.
|
|||||
| People v. Volkmar, NO. 5-03-0117,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's postconviction petition was filed beyond the 90-day time period in 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 122-2.1 (2004), and the State had not filed a motion to dismiss based on waiver, res judicata, or untimeliness, pursuant to 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 122-5, the trial court was obligated to docket the petition for further consideration.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
