 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Powell, NO. 4-05-0726,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying candidate's petition for election contest, as it was insufficient to contest the election's validity; however, it erred in dismissing petition for recount, as the candidate, pursuant to 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/23-23.2, sufficiently alleged a reasonable likelihood that the results of the election would change.
|
|||||
| Behe v. Indus. Comm'n (Sullivan Delivery Serv.), No. 2-05-0813WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois Industrial Commission properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review an employee's second petition under 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/19(h) because it was filed outside of the 30-month time period prescribed by § 19(h) as the denial of the employee's first petition under § 19(h) did not toll the limitations period.
|
|||||
| Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, No. 1-03-2142,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affirmance of state revenue department's determination that service company was not exempt from the state service occupation tax was error; even though relevant maintenance work was performed in Illinois, service company was exempt from 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/3 service tax because delivery of aircraft to customer occurred in other states.
|
|||||
| People v. Alvarado, No. 2-05-0050,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding defendant did not establish prima facie case of racial discrimination in juror's exclusion. Juror, like defendant, was Hispanic and shared common characteristics with other, accepted venire members; juror and others accepted all had relatives or friends with drug problems, yet others were not excluded on that basis.
|
|||||
| People v. James, No. 1-05-0811,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence; initial stop of her was justified based on police officer's reasonable suspicion she was engaging in criminal activity and officer's questioning did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights because it was reasonably related to circumstances prompting stop.
|
|||||
| People v. Newman, NO. 4-04-0847,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant filed both a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a direct appeal, he forfeited the issue of an improper-admonishment claim based on the court's failure to admonish him as to mandatory supervised release pursuant to 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-8-1(d)(1) as he failed to raise the improper-admonishment claim in either situation.
|
|||||
| People v. Squire, No. 1-04-2387,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show confrontation rights under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Ill. Const. art. I, § 8 had been violated where, following a bench trial, he was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance; stipulation did not indicate that stipulated evidence was sufficient to convict and State did not present its entire case through stipulation.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, NO. 4-04-0610,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attachments to postconviction petition failed to support inmate's allegations that he was unfit to plead guilty to charges stemming from his incarceration on prior convictions as required by 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-2. Thus, the petition failed to state the "gist" of a constitutional claim, and it was properly dismissed as frivolous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
