 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Brown, No. 1-02-3276,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in admitting into evidence, pursuant to 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/115-10.2, the custodial statements and prior trial testimony of two codefendants, and the error was not harmless; the statements and prior testimony violated defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause to confront witnesses against him.
|
|||||
| People v. Dean, No. 2-04-0223,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in determining that defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation under 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 301/1 et seq., known as TASC probation, as the evidence showed that he was ineligible pursuant to 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 40-5(7) and that statutory provision did not violate his state or federal equal protection rights.
|
|||||
| People v. McDonald, No. 3-05-0122,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in its summary dismissal of defendant's successive petition because he failed to show he was prevented by an objective external factor from presenting his claims regarding shackling at trial in an earlier proceeding; thus he waived right to bring claim under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/122-3 (2002) of Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
|
|||||
| People v. Thornton, No. 2-04-0565,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was reversed because the record failed to establish that he validly waived his right to a jury trial; the trial court's mere references to a bench trial made in defendant's presence, in the context of conversations about other matters, did not equate to a "discussion" of a jury waiver in open court.
|
|||||
| Shields v. State Emples. Ret. Sys., No. 1-04-1250,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a former judge's action seeking a refund on a pension contribution after he was informed that his benefits were to be terminated, the trial court erred in determining that interest had to be paid on the refund as 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1303 did not require the judges retirement system to remit interest on a judgment entered against it.
|
|||||
| Cassens Transp. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (Ade), Docket No. 100183.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear a former employer's request to terminate partial disability benefits under 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/8(d)(1) (2002) because there was no authority to terminate an award of benefits 10 years after an award was entered, despite the fact that an employee's earnings had changed.
|
|||||
| Harshman v. DePhillips, Docket No. 99805.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Truck driver, truck owner, and truck lessee's contribution claim was not one asserted by a third-party complaint in a pending action, as required by 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 100/5, where they had filed that claim in Illinois state court after a federal magistrate had denied them leave to file it in the pending federal action.
|
|||||
| Perlstein v. Wolk, Docket No. 98909,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court's judgment reversing trial court's judgment finding claimants did not timely file their legal malpractice action was affirmed; state supreme court's Best decision instantaneously barred their complaint, and their filing of their complaint within three weeks of that decision meant their complaint was filed within a reasonable time.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
