 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mulay v. Mulay, Docket No. 102619,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, March 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's ruling that grandparent visitation statute, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/607(a-5) (Supp. 2005) was unconstitutional was vacated; trial court improperly ruled on constitutional issue presented in a 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-619 motion when nonconstitutional grounds for dismissal had been presented in companion motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| People v. Colon, Docket No. 102003,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, March 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance failed when the Illinois Supreme Court overruled People v. Grayson, 58 Ill. 2d 260, 319 N.E.2d 43 (1974) and its progeny, with the result that collateral estoppel no longer precluded the State from proceeding with a probation revocation hearing after a defendant had been acquitted of substantive charge.
|
|||||
| People v. Ortiz, No. 1-05-1773,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, March 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal of the dismissal of his 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1401 petition was itself dismissed as the sole issue, the modification of the mittimus, should have been presented to the trial court by motion; the State Appellate Defender was directed to file such motions in any case in which modification of the mittimus was the sole issue.
|
|||||
| People v. Pryor, No. 1-04-3434,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony that defendant threatened to shoot victim and pressed object against victim's stomach that victim said felt like circle object supported the finding that defendant carried a firearm on his person. Multiple convictions did not violate one-act, one-crime rule despite fact they were based on stealing one vehicle as there were two victims.
|
|||||
| Roberson v. Indus. Comm'n (P.I. & I. Motor Express, Inc.), Docket No. 102723.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, March 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence truck driver was responsible for costs and expenses associated with operating his truck, was allowed to have employees, was required to operate his truck in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and driver was to post the employer's logos on truck supported finding driver was employee entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
|
|||||
| Town & Country Utils., Inc. v. Ill. Pollution Control Bd., Docket Nos. 101619, 101652 cons.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, March 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Illinois found that 415 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/41 required a reviewing court to determine whether the Illinois Pollution Control Board's decision, rather than that of a city, was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court also ruled that the Board's conclusion was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
