 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Ramirez, NO. 1-04-0630,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a property owner's appeal of the denial of a motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to vacate a judgment of demolition was moot, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider, as a city filed a lis pendens while the owner's interest in the property was not of record.
|
|||||
| Marshall v. Burger King Corp., Docket No. 100372.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court properly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the estate administrator's complaint for damages against the restaurant corporation and franchisee for fatal injuries that decedent suffered when a car drove through the restaurant's window, as the complaint allegations sufficiently showed that they owed decedent a duty of care.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Devine v. Sharkey, Docket No. 101171.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandamus to compel a circuit court judge to set a delinquency petition for trial within 120 days was denied. Contrary to the State's position, it was not "any party" who could, upon written notice, demand a trial within 120 days under 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 405/5-601(1).
|
|||||
| People v. Kirkpatrick, No. 2-04-0501,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-9(a)(1)(i), (a)(2) was established by two letters he sent one judge, threatening her life and that of another judge. Consecutive sentences on his two convictions under the statute was proper as the letter contained two separate threats, which constituted separate courses of conduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Klebanowski, Docket No. 100257.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois Supreme Court confirmed that defendant was properly held responsible under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/9-1(a)(3) for death of his accomplice as the accomplice was fleeing from the armed robbery of an off-duty police officer. The supreme court refused to abandon the proximate cause theory for the felony murder rule.
|
|||||
| People v. LaPointe, Nos. 2-04-0495 & 2-04-0835 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate erred in relying on 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-2.1(a)(2), in alleging failure to timely rule on postconviction petition, as trial court relied on 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1(f), which required inmate to obtain leave to file petition; inmate did not establish gist of "cause" under § 122-1(f), and, thus, was properly denied leave.
|
|||||
| People v. M.T. (In re M.T.), Docket No. 99310.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in applying cross-comparison analysis to find indecent solicitation of an adult statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11-6.5(a), violated state constitution's proportionate penalties, Ill. Const. art. I, § 11, as use of that analysis was abandoned in Sharpe case, and, also, statute did not violate minor's due process rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Robinson, Docket No. 98800.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant forfeited each of the issues he raised in his brief regarding the admission of evidence regarding a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) because the issues were not presented in his petition for leave to appeal. The issue addressed in the petition, whether a Frye hearing should have been held, could not be reached the issue was not argued.
|
|||||
| Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Publ. Co., Docket No. 100555.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in ruling that the fair report privilege could be trumped by allegation that trade magazine's reporting on patent infringement claims involved false statements made with actual malice, as that privilege did not yield to claims that a media defendant reported with actual malice false statements made in an official proceeding.
|
|||||
| Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, Docket Nos. 99584, 99595 cons.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, June 22, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affirmance of trial court's decision awarding to home builder in its legal malpractice action against law firm "lost punitive damages" that jury found home builder would have been awarded in underlying action was error; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1115 expressly barred such a recovery and, also, purpose for making such an award would not be served.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
