 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McRoberts v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., NO. 5-04-0781,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiff's product liability action pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 103(b) was reversed and remanded because, although defendant manufacturer was not served until one year after plaintiff filed suit, plaintiff was acting under a reasonable assumption that his decision to withhold service to facilitate settlement was acceptable.
|
|||||
| People v. Patel, No. 1-03-2563,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 5, 2006, Decided , June 5, 2006, Opinion filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court initially failed to send jury instructions with jury into deliberations, error did not constitute plain error under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 615(a). Jury instructions were read to jury in open court and were proper. Evidence against defendant was overwhelming. Jury had chance to review instructions before delivering verdict.
|
|||||
| People v. Qualls, NO. 5-04-0643,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Anhydrous ammonia was not a "poisonous gas" under § 20.5-6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/20.5-6 (2002)). State's proposed interpretation of the term "poisonous gas" was contradicted by statute's legislative history and gave it unintended breadth. Defendant's conviction for possession of a deadly substance was reversed.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 1-04-1621,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, June 6, 2006, Decided , June 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate administrator failed to show the product manufacturer owed a legal duty to decedent regarding the implementation of a cardiac pacemaker and lead manufactured by the product manufacturer, and, thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the estate administrator's negligence cause of action against the product manufacturer.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Wrecking Co. v. Sarang Corp., No. 1-05-0637,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, June 6, 2006, Decided , June 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly confirmed arbitration award entered in favor of one contractor; small business contractor did not show in regard to their joint venture bid to work on Navy demolition project that a ground under 710 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12(a)(1)-(a)(4) existed to vacate award, or that an additional recognized ground to vacate was present.
|
|||||
| People v. Houar, No. 2-05-0993,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that an ex-husband invoked the Fifth Amendment in a protective order hearing was reasonable, but finding that the order should issue based on application of a negative inference was improper, as the ex-husband's silence at the hearing was the only evidence pointing towards abuse. The direct inference of guilt from silence was improper.
|
|||||
| People v. Kevin S. (In re K.S.), No. 2-02-0861,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although allegations of neglect were proven, trial court erred in ordering father complete sexual offender evaluation and follow resulting recommendations because there was no evidence against the father; mother's stipulation stating, inter alia, that allegations of sexual molestation had been made was only "evidence" trial court heard.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
