 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine, Inc., Docket No. 99807.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court had determined that insureds' giving their insurer notice of a lawsuit over 20 months after it was filed was not "reasonable notice" under the policy, the insureds were not entitled to a defense under the policy, regardless of whether the lack of reasonable notice prejudiced the insurer.
|
|||||
| Governmental Interinsurance Exch. v. Judge, Docket No. 100668.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court held that issue of proximate cause in appellate legal malpractice action is inherently question of law for court. Had defendants perfected appeal, appellate court would not have reversed judgment based on 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/3-104, and, thus, negligence in failing to perfect appeal was not proximate cause of injuries.
|
|||||
| Hines v. Dep't of Pub. Aid, Docket No. 100841.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 305 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-13 (2002) and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(b), wife's estate was not liable to reimburse Illinois Department of Public Aid for Medicaid benefits received by her husband, who predeceased her, as his sole assets -- joint tenancy interests in house and auto -- were never part of his estate but passed to widow on his death.
|
|||||
| Horgan v. Romans, Nos. 1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, May 18, 2006, Decided , May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in electing to decline jurisdiction in child visitation case and in finding New York was a more appropriate forum, pursuant to 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 36/207, as the record showed that the trial court balanced the requisite factors and determined that compared to New York, Illinois was an inconvenient forum.
|
|||||
| In re Martinez-Fraticelli, Docket No. 101317,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, who had been disbarred on consent following his guilty plea for accepting money for work that he did not perform for city committees, showed by clear and convincing evidence that he was rehabilitated and was once more fit to practice law pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 767(f), and, thus, his petition for reinstatement was granted.
|
|||||
| Koch v. Estate of Koziol (In re Estate of Koziol), No. 1-05-1455,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, May 18, 2006, Decided , May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's order admitting a copy of a will and an original codicil to probate was reversed and remanded because an heir was entitled to a hearing, under 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-21, regarding her request for formal proof of the will and an evidentiary hearing, under 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-4, regarding the revocation of the will.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. DOT v. Firstar Ill., No. 2-05-0392,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not violate appellate court's remand mandate by refusing to allow Illinois Department of Transportation to name expert to replace expert who had died and whose testimony was declared inadmissible and in granting summary judgment under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1005(c) to owners. Mandate did not require reopening of discovery.
|
|||||
| People v. Brooks, Docket No. 99293,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's summary dismissal of inmate's postconviction petition was timely, because the petition was "docketed" within the meaning of 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/122-2.1 not when the clerk received it, but when the cause was entered on court's official docket for further proceedings, and the dismissal order was entered 90 days after this occurred.
|
|||||
| People v. Caballes, Docket No. 91547,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A dog sniff of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop did not implicate the privacy clause of Ill. Const. art. I, § 6, and adherence to a "limited lockstep" approach to interpretation of a provision of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 that was identical to or entirely synonymous with a provision of the United States Constitution was reaffirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Gaylord (In re Donald A.G.), Docket No. 100965.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since father was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-14.1(a)(1), a presumption of depravity arose pursuant to Adoption Act, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/1(D)(i), and because father did not rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence, his parental rights were properly terminated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
