 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. 69 W. Wash. Mgmt. LLC, No. 1-06-1864,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 18, 2007, Decided, June 18, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurers were not bound to provide a defense for a management company and a county in underlying tort suits because plaintiff insurer issued a policy to security company one and nothing in an agreement between security company one and security company two obligated security company one to obtain coverage for anyone.
|
|||||
| Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Aargus Sec. Sys., No. 1-06-2121,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 18, 2007, Decided, June 18, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an insurance company declaring that the company had no duty to defend or indemnify a corporation in underlying suits arising out of a fire, because under the terms of the policy in questioned, the corporation was not an additional insured.
|
|||||
| Gaston v. Chac, Inc., Nos. 1-06-0416 & 1-06-0618 Consolidated,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in reversing in two separate cases the city housing agency's decisions to terminate the program participants' payments made on their behalf for housing by the city housing agency; both decisions simply found each program participant to be "in violation" without consideration of any circumstances relevant to their cases.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Mannix, No. 1-06-2130,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 18, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father was declared to be the father of the parties' minor child because, although the parties were divorced, the parties admitted that the child was conceived during their marriage, thereby invoking the presumption of paternity under 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 45/5(a)(1). Further, the parties identified the father on the child's birth certificate.
|
|||||
| People v. Buford, No. 2-06-0261,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed charges against defendant on speedy trial grounds under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/103-5(b) (2004) because defendant initially made a written demand for trial and objected to the State's request for a continuance, and under the circumstances, the delay in bringing defendant to trial could not be attributed to defendant.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 1-05-3254,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by transferring a wrongful death and survival action based on forum non conveniens, as the public and private interest factors, including the fact that the subject accident occurred in another county, and that evidence would be easier to access in the other county, supported the transfer.
|
|||||
| Unilever Best Foods N. Am. v. Ill. Workers Comp. Comm'n (Collofello), No. 1-06-2395WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's petition for judicial review of a decision by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission was dismissed because in the absence of evidence filed within the statutory review period of an attorney's authority to sign a bond, the bond filed by the employer failed to satisfy the requirements of 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/19(f)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
