 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Clay, No. 1-04-2394,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expert testimony opining victim's death was not case of overlay or SIDS, and paramedic's testimony copious amounts of water came out of baby after she administered back blows supported murder conviction. Ineffective assistance claim failed as defendant failed to show probability that but for counsel's decision outcome would have been different.
|
|||||
| Ropiy v. Hernandez, No. 1-05-0283,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's expenditures, even if substantial, were not made in good faith reliance on prior zoning of his property as they were all made after the proposed zoning ordinance amendment was published in a public record; the owner was charged with constructive knowledge of the proposed zoning change, so he had no vested interest in prior zoning.
|
|||||
| People v. Barney, NO. 4-04-0217,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to establish that shackling him during his trial amounted to plain error as he did not show prejudice since leg shackles were not noticeable by jury, nothing indicated that his decision not to testify was influenced in any way by leg shackles, and he made no argument that leg shackles prevented him from assisting in his defense.
|
|||||
| People v. Harris, No. 3-05-0219,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant chose a bench trial on the back of a uniform citation and complaint, nothing in Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 505 stated that defendant's request of a bench trial on the uniform citation served as a substitute to defendant's understanding waiver of his 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/103-6 right to a jury trial in open court.
|
|||||
| People v. Strickland, NO. 4-04-0218,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order that one of defendant's hands be handcuffed to table during jury trial did not require reversal under plain-error doctrine; even if handcuff was visible to jury any error did not contribute to verdict in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. Trial court's inquiry into ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims was adequate.
|
|||||
| Tavares v. Rangel (In re Tavares), NO. 5-05-0488,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since nothing in the Parentage Act, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 45/1 et seq. (2004), or the custody provisions of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/601 et seq. (2004), required the mother to seek leave to move the child where they already lived in another state, the trial court erred in denying the petition.
|
|||||
| Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Hall, No. 1-05-0161,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the family members sought to recover loss of consortium damages from the insurer due to the injuries sustained by the insured party, the smaller per-person liability limits applied to them. The per-person clause expressly applied to consequential damages, including loss of consortium damages, sustained by persons other than the insured.
|
|||||
| People v. Scott, NO. 4-04-1054,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the factors considered by the court as to defendant's conviction under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-3, which included defendant's actions of throwing her baby in a plastic bag, dumping her baby's body in a dumpster, and then going on a spring-break trip less than 24 hours later, were not improper, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
| Profitt v. OneBeacon Ins., NO. 5-05-0045,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an insurer in a declaratory judgment action regarding the coverage afforded under an insurance policy because the inclusion of two declarations pages in a certified copy of the policy issued to the insured did not create an ambiguity regarding the bodily injury liability limits.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Wright (In re Wright), NO. 4-05-0264,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A dispute between parents of a child who was the subject of a parentage case over changing the child's name was to be resolved in the court which presided over the parentage case under its jurisdiction over matters incident to the child's custody, rather than in another court, pursuant to a petition under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/21-204 (2004).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
