 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DOT v. Tucker, No. 3-05-0277,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a traverse seeking production of Illinois DOT's (IDOT) appraisal in a condemnation action. Contrary to the holding in Hunziker, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/7-102.1(d)(1) required IDOT to provide letter to property owner providing basis for offer but did not require production of appraisal.
|
|||||
| Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Ill. Gaming Bd., Nos. 1-05-2319 and 1-05-2542, Consolidated,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court clarified its prior mandate regarding the renewal of a casino's gambling license and its relocation pursuant to 230 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/11.2; the Illinois Gaming Board was to issue a renewal license within 30 days; license was to have a four-year term effective as of date of issuance but subject to revocation proceedings.
|
|||||
| People v. Boyd, No. 1-04-3116,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of other-crime evidence was not reversible error since evidence was relevant to prove intent where details of other assault were relevant to show the striking similarities between two crimes. There was no error in trial court's responses to jury's questions because, inter alia, judge's responses were neutral and did not "hasten" verdict.
|
|||||
| Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Radio Materials Corp., No. 1-05-3521,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court did not abuse its discretion under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-619(a)(3) in dismissing an action in Illinois because a similar action was already pending in Indiana as: (1) the parties were substantially similar; (2) principles of comity might have been violated if the action had proceeded; and (3) multiple litigation was avoided.
|
|||||
| Krivanec v. Abramowitz, No. 1-05-1617,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court judgment in favor of a special estate administratrix in a medical malpractice action was reversed because the doctor was entitled to a directed verdict as, given the complete absence of expert testimony connecting the alleged negligence by the doctor as to the decedent's fatal injury, the evidence of proximate cause was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Sperandeo v. Zavitz, No. 2-05-1192,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court answered a certified question under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 308(a), to the effect that the statute of limitations contained in 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/8-101 of the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act governed an accident victim's action against an animal control warden.
|
|||||
| Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Herrin, NO. 5-04-0575,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's interlocutory order was affirmed in part and reversed in part as the appellate court, after reviewing an insurance policy's declarations page and the policy language together, found that the proper interpretation of an insurance policy prohibited the stacking of underinsured motorist coverages and prohibited the stacking of setoffs.
|
|||||
| Kindernay v. Hillsboro Area Hosp., NO. 5-05-0098,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of judgment on jury's verdict finding testing facility's negligence in administering subject's drug test proximately caused her damages, but finding for her on her claim under Consumer Fraud Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/1 et seq., was reversed as complaint did not allege misrepresentation with intent that she rely on misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Krawczyk v. Livaditis, No. 1-04-2228,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in making a single award of damages for violations of both Chicago, Ill., Mun. Code §§ 5-12-080 and 5-12-100. While single award of damages for multiple violations of the former was proper, tenants were entitled to separate damages for the latter.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
