 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bremer v. Leisure Acres-Phase II Hous. Corp., No. 3-05-0112,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the sidewalk at issued bordered or abutted the senior living community residence, the Snow and Ice Removal Act, 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 75/1 et seq. (2002), applied to the walkway upon which the injured person slipped and fell. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the property owners.
|
|||||
| Erickson v. Schackmann (In re Estate of Erickson), NO. 4-05-0446,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although joint and mutual will gave wife, as survivor, couple's property absolutely, wife was not permitted to transfer three parcels five days before her death. Husband and wife intended that survivor would dispose of their property almost equally among their children and did not give wife free reign to disrupt dispositional scheme.
|
|||||
| Muhammad v. Muhammad-Rahmah, No. 1-04-2622,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, January 12, 2006, Decided , January 12, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the nonprofit corporation's board of directors was never duly elected but was only appointed, this was contrary to statutory law. 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/108.10 provided for election of a director as a condition precedent to his or her holding office until the next election of directors.
|
|||||
| People v. Terri B. (In re M.C.) , No. 2-05-0624,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding of unfitness under 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/1(D)(b) in parental rights termination case was not against manifest weight of evidence. Mother failed to make reasonable efforts to communicate with or show interest in her children. She refused additional visitation and failed to contact children through cards or phone calls.
|
|||||
| People v. Brockman, NO. 5-04-0433,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court dismissed the inmate's fourth postconviction petition for failure to comply with 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1(f), dismissal was appropriate. Section 122-1(f) required the inmate to obtain leave of court before filing a successive postconviction petition, and the inmate, before filing his pro se petition, failed to do so.
|
|||||
| People v. Jackson, NO. 4-04-0007,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Judicial efficiency outweighed defendant's interest in individual autonomy, and defendant had not made a coherent argument with citation to relevant authorities as required by Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 361(a), the appellate court denied his request to proceed pro se on appeal.
|
|||||
| People v. James, NO. 4-04-0414,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court refused to hear defendant's pro se, pretrial motions that were made while he was represented by counsel, defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to self-representation were not violated. Defendant was not entitled to self-representation and the assistance of counsel at the same time.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
