 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Chicago v. Driscoll, No. 1-06-2198,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that defendant vehicle owner did not violate municipal code by failing to display vehicle sticker was error because Chicago, Ill., Mun. Code § 3-56-020 provided that if vehicle owner resided within city, vehicle must display city sticker. Whether vehicle was based in city limits did not determine if vehicle needed to display city sticker.
|
|||||
| People v. Jamison, No. 1-04-2219,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 30, 2007, Decided, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compulsory extraction and subsequent storing of defendant's DNA pursuant to 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-4-3 (2004) following a burglary conviction was proper because, contrary to defendant's argument, the extraction and storing of DNA was not an unreasonable search and did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Rodriguez, No. 1-04-3546,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 30, 2007, Decided, May 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stipulation to proper chain of custody over items recovered from defendant and that items tested positive for cocaine was matter of trial strategy and did not violate defendant's right of confrontation because, inter alia, weight and nature of recovered items were not contested and defense was that defendant did not possess the items.
|
|||||
| Petre v. Consultants Consultants, S.C., Nos. 1-06-1007 and 1-06-1809 Consolidated,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 30, 2007, Decided, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negligence based on what should have been communicated to surgeon was not type that would "speak for itself," nor could layperson be expected to know what doctor would have expected nurse to have communicated to doctor and when. Surgeon's testimony was insufficient as he failed to show familiarity with standards observed by non-physician employees.
|
|||||
| Moline v. Vyas, No. 3-06-0030,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, June 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stenographer fees for an evidence deposition were properly assessed under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-109 (2004) and Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 208 against patient who voluntarily dismissed malpractice action one week before trial, but as video taken of deposition would not necessarily have been used at trial, assessment of videographer fees was error.
|
|||||
| Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oak Builders, Inc., No. 1-05-2279,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment to an insurer in a declaratory judgment action was reversed and remanded because the "excess" insurance clauses in two policies were mutually repugnant and canceled each other out, and the identical "other insurance" clauses in the policies were deemed incompatible. Accordingly, an underlying loss was to be pro rated between the policies.
|
|||||
| People v. Bakr, No. 1-05-0357,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of videotaped statements by two witnesses did not violate defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause because they testified and were subject to cross-examination, giving defendant the chance to impeach their credibility. One isolated question which elicited testimony about victim's mental disability did not deny defendant a fair trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Balle, No. 1-06-0302,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's postconviction claims were denied because his petition was his second postconviction petition and he failed to satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1(f). However, he was to be resentenced because he was not informed at his sentencing of his right to elect sentencing under different sentencing acts.
|
|||||
| Rokosik v. Ret. Bd. of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, Nos. 1-05-1501 & 1-05-1502 (consolidated),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Firemen's widows were properly granted non-duty annuity benefit rather than duty annuities under 40 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-140 because, inter alia, the fact that their husbands were receiving occupational disabilities at the time of their deaths under 40 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-151.1 did not automatically entitle them to a duty annuity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
