 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cochran v. Lindeman (In re Sophia G.L.), NO. 4-06-0864,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though alleged father was not given notice of intervenors' Indiana custody proceedings, he failed to prove he was entitled to notice under UCCJEA, as he was not married to mother and child's paternity had not been established when intervenors filed their custody petition. Therefore, Illinois court erred in not registering Indiana custody order.
|
|||||
| Joseph V.D., No. 2-06-0988,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court order in a child custody case was vacated, and the case was remanded because the trial court failed to provide a record of its communication with the Nevada court as required under 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 36/110 of the Illinois Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 36/101 et seq.
|
|||||
| Medical Alliances, LLC v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 2-06-0188,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an insurer requested sanctions against companies and the law firm of the attorney who represented the companies, the request for sanctions against the law firm was properly denied because Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 137 did not allow for sanctions against a law firm; only the person who signed the document and/or the client could be sanctioned.
|
|||||
| People v. Yarbrough (In re Veronica J.), NO. 4-06-0849,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that a mother was unfit for failing to protect her child from an environment injurious to her welfare under § 1(D)(g) of the Adoption Act (750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/1(D)(g)) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The mother allowed the child to reside in a home where drug sales often occurred.
|
|||||
| Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 1-05-3213,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to car manufacturer after car buyer received more than fair market value for his car on trade-in; genuine issue of material fact existed about whether he sustained damages pursuant to 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-714(a) since he presented evidence that car's value was reduced at time he accepted it.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1-05-1417,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a decedent's estate and an injured son sought to stack underinsured motorist coverage limits of two policies, the most that the insurer was obligated to pay under either policy was $ 0 because, under 215 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/143a-2(4), the insurer could offset each $ 100,000 policy limit by the $ 100,000 payment from the driver's insurer.
|
|||||
| People v. Learn, No. 2-04-1169,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an alleged child victim of aggravated criminal sexual abuse did not testify and there was no corroborative evidence pursuant to 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/115-10(b)(2)(B), the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the alleged victim's out-of-court statements, and defendant had to be given a new trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Prince, No. 5-05-0683,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was sentenced for sexual assault after an amendment to 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/110-14 barred the application of credit against fines for time spent in presentencing custody, he was entitled to the credit because a denial would violate ex post facto prohibitions under U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 9 and 10, and Ill. Const. art. I, § 16.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
