 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albee v. City of Bloomington, NO. 4-05-0923,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers were injured in line of duty and where each officer returned to work before one-year anniversary of injuries only to miss work following anniversary, officers were entitled to disability benefits for time missed after anniversary. One-year limitation in 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 345/1(b) was maximum benefit, not statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Brown, Docket No. 100624.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court properly ruled 605 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4-510, allowing state transportation agency to prepare and record maps identifying right-of-way for a proposed highway, was facially constitutional; it did not violate takings clause, did not violate separation of powers principles, and did not violate substantive due process principles.
|
|||||
| People v. Allen, Docket No. 99977.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although order stun belt remain on defendant without conducting Boose hearing constituted due process violation, defendant was not awarded new trial as, under plain error review, reversal was not required; defendant did not claim evidence was closely balanced and did not show presumption of innocence or ability to assist counsel was compromised.
|
|||||
| People v. Grever, Docket Nos. 99930, 99945 cons.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indictment insufficiently stated official misconduct charge in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/33-3 against defendant; he was not required to report amounts his wife owed to township for his mother-in-law's care at a county nursing home, as 60 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 1/70-15(c) only addressed amounts township owed, not amounts owed to it.
|
|||||
| People v. Medina, Docket No. 100437.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite fact record failed to disclose defendant made decision not to tender lesser-included offense instruction, reversal was not required as defendant was not entitled to instruction. Claim trial court failed to give admonishments under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 605(a) failed as defendant did not identify nature of additional information that might exist.
|
|||||
| People v. Waid, Docket No. 101065.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in effectively finding 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/104-25(a) was unconstitutional when it denied State's motion for admission of evidence at discharge hearing after defendant had been found mentally unfit to stand trial and that he would not obtain fitness in one year; he did not show that his constitutional rights had been violated.
|
|||||
| People v. Whitfield, No. 1-05-0751,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, June 2, 2006, Decided , June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration of his final sentence; appellate court would err by affirming the trial court's decision that did not grant defendant a credit for time spent on probation without having trial court first consider why no credit was granted where probation was imposed due to State's mistake.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Gordon, Docket No. 100600.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in striking expert's affidavit solely because engineer was not licensed in Illinois as required by 225 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 325/39(b)(4); fact that he was not licensed in Illinois was only one issue to be considered by trial court in determining whether expert was qualified to give opinions in a negligence action.
|
|||||
| Thomson Learning, Inc. v. Olympia Props., LLC, No. 2-05-0766,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a commercial tenant failed to effectively exercise a cancellation option in its lease, and a trier of fact could reasonably infer that the tenant's hands were unclean, summary judgment in favor of the tenant was reversed. The tenant conceded, for purposes of summary judgment, that it did not provide written notice by a certain date.
|
|||||
| Weininger v. Siomopoulos, No. 1-04-3173,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, June 2, 2006, Decided , June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order dismissing a count of an amended complaint for negligent medical care and treatment was affirmed as the count did not relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint, under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-616, and was therefore barred by the two-year statute of limitations under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-212.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
