 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Marriage of Carrillo, No. 1-06-2274,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court had jurisdiction to consider both dissolution judgment and order dismissing former husband's contempt motion, entered six months later, as judgment did not contain Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 304(a) language and did not become final until dismissal order was entered; dismissal order reversed as trial court erred in denying hearing on motion.
|
|||||
| People v. Escobedo, 1-05-2229,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's recharacterization of a 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1401 petition as a Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1 et seq., petition was vacated as pro se inmate who filed the petitions simultaneously had not been given Shellstrom admonishments; the admonishments were mandatory and applied to the inmate's case.
|
|||||
| People v. Holt, NO. 4-06-0422,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's postconviction petition challenging that the addition of a period of mandatory supervised release (MSR) was frivolous and patently without merit where he had indicated that he understood that if he was sent to prison, there was a period of one to three years of MSR, and thus, he had received the benefit of his bargain with the State.
|
|||||
| People v. Kathy K. (In re Stephen K.), Nos. 1-06-2135 & 1-06-2061 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unrebutted expert testimony, along with minor's extensive medical records, supported adjudication under 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 405/2-3(1)(a) that minor was medically neglected and established that parents were unable for some reason other than financial circumstances alone to care for the minor. The minor was properly made ward of court.
|
|||||
| People v. Landers, NO. 4-05-1021,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in resentencing defendant to a term of probation following the revocation of her probation where she had been admonished during a guilty-plea hearing of the maximum penalty, she acknowledged that she understood the penalties, and she failed to report to her probation officer or submit to drug screens.
|
|||||
| People v. Michelle L. (In re Michelle L.), NO. 4-06-0599,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent was properly found to be subject to involuntary admission to mental health facility under 405 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-119 because request for voluntary admission was clinically improper, she repeatedly put herself in serious physical danger because of her bipolar disorder, and she would stop taking medication if she were an outpatient.
|
|||||
| People v. Owens, NO. 4-05-0531,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's contention that the State improperly elicited the victims' opinion that defendant intended to kill the first victim and another victim by dousing them with gasoline and then trying to light them on fire had to be rejected, as lay witnesses could testify to ultimate issue in the case and admission of that testimony was not plain error.
|
|||||
| People v. Young, NO. 4-05-0759,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial motion to disclose identity of a confidential informant involved in defendant's prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; defendant did not meet his burden of showing, pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 412(j)(ii), that there was a need for disclosure.
|
|||||
| People v. Alsup, NO. 5-05-0486,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that, inter alia, defendant led police on 28-mile high-speed chase committing many perilous acts supported knowing first-degree murder conviction, as conduct amounted to more than series of reckless acts. Police emergency radio broadcasts were admissible under both business records and present-sense impression exceptions to hearsay rule.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
