 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Chiicago v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n (Powell), 1-06-2206WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission decision awarding claimant permanent total disability benefits for life (820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/8(f)) as an "odd lot" was affirmed. The Commission's decision to favor a vocational rehabilitation counselor's findings over those of another counselor was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Consol. Freightways v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, No. 1-06-1919WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an employer was ordered to provide a claimant with "meaningful vocational rehabilitation," without stating a specific plan for such services, the order (1) was interlocutory because it required a further determination of the services to be provided, and (2) inappropriate because it merely incorporated 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/8(a) (2000).
|
|||||
| Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 1-05-3998,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Decided, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporate officer and valet parking company's contention that the administrative record filed by the city failed to comply with 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-108(b) and was so inadequate it prevented meaningful review had to be rejected; record fully complied with the statute and they did not show how they were prejudiced by alleged inadequacy.
|
|||||
| Paul B. Episcope, Ltd. v. Law Offices of Campbell & Di Vincenzo, No. 1-05-2329,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although parties agreed to jointly represent client in federal suit and split fees, agreement did not entitle plaintiffs to recover fees from defendants for malpractice suit brought for same client; agreement violated Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(f), as basis for division of fees and responsibilities to be assumed by parties was not included.
|
|||||
| People v. Fort, No. 1-04-1937,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Decided, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of $ 500 drug assessment did not require finding of defendant's ability to pay since it was a fine. Imposition of fee for deposit in Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis Cure Research Trust did not violate due process but could be viewed as criminal penalty. DNA extraction order did not violate defendant's state or federal constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| People v. McDonald, No. 1-04-0320,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Decided, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's inclusion of captions "Ill. Post-Conviction Petition" and "Post-Conviction Petition" written across pages of pleadings made it clear inmate's petition was intended to be post-conviction petition for purposes of 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1(d), inmate did not have to specifically cite to statute or refer to Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
|
|||||
| SBC Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 1-05-0883,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a surety company as to a brewery's action seeking a declaration that the company was obligated to defend the brewery in an underlying action, as a policy limiting parenthetical denying coverage for discrimination applied, and thus the company had no duty to defend.
|
|||||
| Stark v. Ill. Emcasco Ins. Co., No. 1-05-2370,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, May 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer of corporation was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits under policy issued to corporation for injuries suffered as a pedestrian because coverage was only provided to "named insured" shown in the policy declarations, which was the corporation. Premiums paid by the corporation were to provide UM/UIM coverage for those occupying a covered auto.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
