 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lopez v. Miller, No. 1-05-1035,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in barring alleged tortfeasor from rejecting arbitration award and entering judgment for claimant for a certain sum; such Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 91(b) sanctions were proper, as alleged tortfeasor did not rectify his deficient discovery participation during four months between trial court's sanction order and arbitration hearing.
|
|||||
| MC Baldwin Fin. Co. v. DiMaggio, No. 1-04-3394,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting summary judgment to accounting firm and granting substitute firm's motion for dismissal upon finding financial services firm's complaint was filed beyond 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-214.2(a) limitations period was error; financial services firm allegedly had no damages whatsoever until less than two years before filing its complaint.
|
|||||
| People v. Hampton, No.1-03-0067,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand was required for an evidentiary hearing to determine if defendant violated the privilege under the Confrontation Clause by wrongfully procuring the silence of a witness by writing a letter; any conduct by an accused intended to render a witness against him unavailable to testify was wrongful and could have resulted in a forfeiture.
|
|||||
| People v. Lewis, No. 2-05-0111,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officer searched defendant's room while defendant was unconscious, warrantless search was reasonable under emergency-assistance exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Subjective motive of officer was irrelevant. It was reasonable for officer to attempt to determine what substance had caused defendant to be unconscious.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Trans Union L.L.C., No. 1-05-0719,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In underwriters' suit to determine if lawsuits filed after policy was entered were excluded because insured party's counsel had known of violations that were likely to result in lawsuits, insured party violated policy's cooperation clause by failing to turn over items relating to pre-policy litigation involving same facts as post-policy litigation.
|
|||||
| Arnett v. Markel, NO. 5-04-0082,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 2, 2006.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the captain and warden on prisoner's claim that they violated his First Amendment right to free speech by refusing to allow him to mail an internal investigative report, as the refusal did not further any important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.
|
|||||
| Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. , Docket No. 99924.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In wrongful death suit involving train/vehicle accident, defendants' motion to transfer case based on doctrine of intrastate forum non conveniens was properly denied since, inter alia, they could not assert that chosen forum was inconvenient to administrator of decedent's estate, and they failed to show that chosen county had no connection to case.
|
|||||
| People v. Sturgess, No. 1-04-2191,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to quash arrest, as she was not unlawfully seized after a traffic accident she caused by swerving her vehicle in front of another car; considering all relevant circumstances regarding her encounter with police officers, a reasonable person would not have believed a forcible detention occurred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
