 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nutt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Estate of Williams), No. 3-05-0629,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court overruled In re Estate of Fry, 188 Ill. App. 3d 366, 544 N.E. 2d 109 (1989), and established rule providing that where testator directs all obligations be paid from residue will is silent as to source of funds in case residue is insufficient, equitable apportionment must be applied if later discovered residue is insufficient.
|
|||||
| Catamount Cargo Servs., LLC v. Ill. Dep't of Empl. Sec., No. 1-05-1464,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Director of the Department of Employment Security was "the" administrative agency, and because an employer failed to name her as a defendant in its appeal, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 3-103 and 3-107(a) (2004) did not authorize amendment of the complaint; thus, the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| People v. Lang, No. 1-04-3247,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, July 24, 2006, Decided , July 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial judge, in sentencing defendant, made it clear that he was sentencing defendant solely to remove him from society because prisons were unable to rehabilitate people, the sentence violated Ill. Const. art. I, § 11. The trial judge impermissibly failed to consider defendant's rehabilitative potential.
|
|||||
| Shultz v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1-05-0749,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, July 24, 2006, Decided , July 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's summary judgment grant to the insurance company was proper on insured's claim for confirmation of arbitration award and entry of judgment thereon pursuant to 710 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1; the failure of insurance company to timely contest the award did not bar it from asserting policy limits defense to insured's confirmation claim.
|
|||||
| Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., NO. 5-05-0078,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the injury to the purchasers in paying for a computer with a microprocessor that was allegedly no better than others occurred throughout the country, and because California was the only state where conduct relevant to all potential class members occurred, the circuit court misapplied Illinois' choice-of-law rules.
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Airborne Express, Inc., NO. 5-04-0793,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the courier service on the customer's breach-of-contract lawsuit; while the customer's lawsuit was not preempted by Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41713(b)(1), the parties agreed to an exclusive remedy for the customer for a delayed shipment and the customer received that remedy.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Chi. Transit Auth., No. 1-05-1186,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, July 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bus passenger's complaint failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of § 41 of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act, 70 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 3605/41, as the complaint omitted the name and address of the passenger's attending physician and she failed to file the complaint with the office of the secretary of the Chicago Transit Board.
|
|||||
| Lawndale Restoration Ltd. P'ship v. Acordia of Ill., Inc., Nos. 1-05-2875 and 1-05-2876, Consolidated.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, July 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court found the company's production to state insurance department of its insurance compliance self-evaluative audit document waived any right it had to protect that document from disclosure; 215 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/155.35(a) did not extend privilege against disclosure to document that the company freely provided to the third party.
|
|||||
| First Cash Fin. Servs. v. Indus. Comm'n (Rios), No. 1-05-3403WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION, July 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant did not present any evidence establishing the cause of her fall in the bathroom at her employer's workplace and, thus, she failed to prove that her injury "arose out of" her employment; as a result, the claimant did not prove, pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/2, that compensation was justified for injury she sustained to her arm.
|
|||||
| United Airlines, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, No. 1-05-2660,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, July 26, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Airline was not entitled to 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/3-10 reduced use tax rate for motor fuels because while its kerosene-type jet fuel was a special fuel under 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/1.13, it was not one of the special fuels considered a motor fuel under 35 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann 505/1.1 as it could not be used in operating motor vehicles.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
