 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| React Fin. v. Long, No. 3-05-0438,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law superseded prior law that required junior mortgagee (JM) to redeem first mortgage before proceeding to foreclose on second mortgage. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/15-1501(f) gave the JM, a non-party to the first foreclosure, the right to file a separate foreclosure action after first foreclosure judgment was entered.
|
|||||
| Seigles, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, No. 2-05-0547,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to lumber company on its claim city's lumber tax ordinance was unconstitutional; that tax violated Ill. Const. art. VII, § 6(a) because ordinance permitted tax to be applied to sales occurring outside the city's territorial limits and that extraterritorial effect was not authorized by the legislature.
|
|||||
| People v. Barwicki, No. 2-05-0201,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State argued that the order of protection, upon with the violation of order of protection charge under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-30 was based, was improperly vacated nunc pro tunc, thus barring prosecution for the violation, the issue was not before the appellate court. No appeal was taken from the nunc pro tunc order.
|
|||||
| Saia v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., Nos. 1-04-2609 and 1-04-2736 (consolidated),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of a consumer's negligent design action against the designer of a lighter was reversed and remanded because the designer owned all shares of the distributor (thus, the designer obtained all profits from the manufacture and sale of the lighter in Illinois).
|
|||||
| Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Holabird & Root, No. 1-05-0403,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to general contractor on insurance company's claim asserting it did not have duty to defend general contractor after claims were filed against general contractor for lighting that was installed; trial court could look to third-party complaint to see if facts existed providing for potential coverage.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Ehgartner-Shachter, No. 1-04-3808,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of husband's petition to allocate child support was proper, as earlier order regarding support was res judicata, that issue could only be collaterally attacked under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1401, and petition raised no new unknown matter; also, appellate court lacked jurisdiction over other orders, as they were not timely appealed.
|
|||||
| Kuch v. Catholic Bishop, No. 1-05-1175,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim alleging that he was sexually abused by an employee of a church, as the action was already time barred when 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202.2 (amended 2003) was amended, and plaintiff failed to file the action within a 12-year statute of repose.
|
|||||
| People v. Dixon, No. 1-03-2927,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by refusing to appoint new counsel for posttrial motions after trial counsel withdrew following defendant's convictions, as defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel on the posttrial motions, and the court gave him adequate opportunities to develop the motions.
|
|||||
| People v. Jones, Nos. 1-04-2305, 1-04-3038,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After looking at definitions of "semitrailer" in 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-187, and "truck tractor" in 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-212, appellate court concluded semitrailer was part of a motor vehicle within ambit of burglary statute. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-4-3(a), which allowed for DNA collection did not violate Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
