 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burgess v. Brooks, NO. 5-06-0273,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois could not recover 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/5(b) lien against employee's arbitration award in third-party action; language in workers' compensation settlement agreement that each party waived right to reopen claim under any section of Workers' Compensation Act was clear waiver of the State's right to assert the lien against the award.
|
|||||
| Cinkus v. Vill. of Stickney Mun. Officers Electoral Bd., No. 1-07-0700,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 21, 2007, Decided, May 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Electoral board properly ruled that candidate was ineligible under 65 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3.1-10-5(b) to run for village trustee as he was in arrears to village on a $100 disorderly conduct judgment; disqualifying language in the statute was clear and as candidate failed to offer evidence he was not in arrears, his name could not be on ballot.
|
|||||
| People v. Carodine, No. 1-05-2775,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err under the Fourth Amendment and Ill. Const. art. I, § 6 by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from a dryer vent because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the dryer vent. His convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance were affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. McGee, No. 1-05-3020,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of burglary (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/19-1) beyond a reasonable doubt. A custodial search of defendant revealed a portable computer which the victim identified as his, and the location of defendant's arrest was approximately three blocks from the commission of the crime.
|
|||||
| Villanueva v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 1-05-2368,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 21, 2007, Decided, May 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing car buyers' claim against car dealer based on the car dealer's claim that it was not a party to extended service agreement and could not be sued for breaching its provisions; whether it was a party to agreement had to be decided by trier of fact, as agreement required them to contact car dealer for all repair work.
|
|||||
| People v. Malcolm H. (In re Malcolm H.), No. 1-05-3123,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 22, 2007, Decided, May 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a delinquency case involving battery pursuant to 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-3(a), evidence showed that the juvenile physically resisted a school security officer; the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find that the officer was a peace officer and that the juvenile had no legal justification to excuse his battery of the officer.
|
|||||
| People v. Jackson, No. 1-06-0074,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 22, 2007, Decided, May 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's murder conviction was reversed pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, as his confessions were the fruit of his illegal arrest, and the length and circumstances of his detention showed his confessions were involuntary. Detectives' conduct suggested they detained defendant in order to conduct a "fishing expedition" to establish probable cause.
|
|||||
| Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Caremark RX, Inc., No. 1-06-1221,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer that defended insureds under court order that was reversed on appeal was entitled to restitution of defense costs advanced based on unjust enrichment, however, as insurer's complaint did not state a claim for unjust enrichment, denial of motion seeking restitution was proper; insurer should have been allowed to amend complaint to add claim.
|
|||||
| Van Milligen v. Dep't of Empl. Sec., No. 2-06-0098,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing claimant's complaint seeking review of state unemployment benefits review board's (Board) decision; trial court was not required to grant him leave to amend to name Board as a defendant, as he was required to name Board as a necessary party pursuant to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-107(a) and did not do so.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
