 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Flaar, No. 1-05-1497,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided , June 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea for possession of child pornography in Kendall County did not preclude the prosecution in Cook County for dissemination of child pornography under double jeopardy clause or compulsory joinder principles, as there were two separate acts, specifically the possession of two different pornographic items in two different dates.
|
|||||
| People v. Gariano, No. 1-03-2485,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress transcriptions of his instant messages with an undercover police investigator in an Internet chat room because defendant's privacy rights under U.S. Const. amend IV and Ill. Const. art. I, § 6 were not offended, nor was there a violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/14-2(a)(1).
|
|||||
| People v. Jones, No. 1-05-0020,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Spinal Cord Fund fee violated defendant's due process rights because fee was not reasonably related to controlled substance offense for which defendant was convicted. Order for extraction of defendant's blood and storage of his DNA was upheld, as 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-4-3 (2004) was constitutional as applied to defendant and on its face.
|
|||||
| People v. Kelley, 1-04-2600,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the inmate's postconviction petition was affirmed after the appellate court concluded that Apprendi did not apply to the inmate's case because the inmate's direct appeals were exhausted before Apprendi was decided, and thus, Apprendi did not apply retroactively to the inmate's case.
|
|||||
| People v. Quigley, Nos. 2-04-0750 & 2-04-0751 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial court summarily dismissed defendant's Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-1 et seq., (2004), petition within 90 days and without the input of any party, the dismissal was procedurally proper even though the trial court inappropriately referenced the substantial-showing standard.
|
|||||
| Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-04-3800,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of partial summary judgment in favor of automaker did not act as res judicata to plaintiffs' voluntarily dismissed and later refiled claims regarding seatbelt issues. The procedural path taken by plaintiffs did not constitute improper claim splitting, and even if it did, the automaker acquiesced to it by failing to timely object.
|
|||||
| Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, No. 1-05-2320,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court vacated a trial court's order that gave rise to a certified question, and remanded the case for the filing of a written motion regarding a request for the late filing of discovery responses, with notice to the opposing parties and an opportunity for a hearing on their objections to the motion in compliance with Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 183.
|
|||||
| Bowman v. Univ. of Chi. Hosps., No. 1-04-2478,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, June 26, 2006, Decided , June 26, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action, the evidence was balanced but sufficiently favorable to defendants to allow the jury to arrive at its verdict. The trial court did not err in denying a mother's motion for a directed verdict; the court could not say that the evidence so overwhelmingly favored the mother that no contrary verdict could stand.
|
|||||
| Support Council of Dist. 39, Wilmette Local 1274 v. Educ. Labor Rels. Bd., No. 1-05-2687,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district's newly created position of network manager was properly deemed a confidential employee under 115 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2(n) and was properly excluded from collective bargaining unit. The manager had unfettered access to confidential financial and workforce information as well as access to confidential data of the superintendent.
|
|||||
| U.S. Bank N.A. v. Phillips, No. 1-05-1829,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: "Bonded bill of exchange" tendered by mortgagor in complete satisfaction of a mortgage was not a negotiable instrument under 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-104(a)(1), (c), or a check under § 3-104(f). It was a meaningless piece of paper that did not discharge the mortgagor's obligations, and thus, the judicial sale of foreclosed property was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
