 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlisle Invs. Group, Ltd. v. White, No. 1-05-2096,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiffs agreed to assist a building owner to obtain a loan from a third party for a fee, they were loan brokers under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 175/15-5.15 and had to register under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 175/15-10. The fact that they performed other services did not detract from the agreement's main purpose, obtaining a loan for a fee.
|
|||||
| Curi v. Murphy, NO. 4-05-0847,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of decedent's estate in medical malpractice action was affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing jury or in excluding certain testimony, and jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where expert testimony supported a finding that defendants had improperly administered Heparin.
|
|||||
| Nolan v. Weil-McLain, NO. 4-05-0328,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for a special administratrix against a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products was affirmed because the trial court did not err by refusing to admit discovery documents from an earlier lawsuit as evidence of the decedent's other exposures to asbestos, nor did the court err by refusing to give a contributory-negligence instruction.
|
|||||
| People v. Dominguez, Nos. 2-03-1016 & 2-03-1212 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of a trial court's denial of a motion to reconsider its summary dismissal of a postconviction petition was affirmed. The issues raised in the petition were either res judicata or forfeited and none of the issues were subject to the "fundamental fairness" exceptions to the bars of res judicata or forfeiture.
|
|||||
| People v. Frison, No. 2-04-1060,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consequences of truth-in-sentencing provisions of 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-6-3(a)(2)(ii) were collateral in nature as the statute's application was not definite, immediate, or automatic. As the consequences were collateral defense counsel was not ineffective and trial court did not err by failing to inform inmate of the provisions of § 3-6-3.
|
|||||
| Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., No. 1-05-2744,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court improperly dismissed a company's and its principals' claims for defamation per se, commercial disparagement, false light invasion of privacy, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/1 et seq., as they adequately pleaded their claims against a competitor and a newspaper.
|
|||||
| People v. Gwinn, No. 2-04-0100,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officer entered victim's apartment 15 minutes after incident to see her crying, trembling, shaken up, and injured, victim's statement that she had been punched fell under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule. Victim's physical condition showed that statement was made while excitement of event predominated.
|
|||||
| People v. Hollins, No. 3-04-0761,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial on two first degree murder counts. Jury coordinator's deliberate and systematic exclusion of Caucasians from the jury venire for defendant's case constituted a violation of both the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment and prejudice to defendant was presumed.
|
|||||
| People v. Steele, No. 2-04-0930,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction under 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-707 was affirmed. The fact that he could avoid being convicted for failing to produce evidence of auto insurance when asked for it by producing evidence at trial that his vehicle was insured did not create a mandatory presumption or shift the burden to defendant to prove his innocence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
