 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Union Bank v. Thrall, No. 2-06-0713,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand was warranted where the trial court erroneously held that a doctrine identified by a lender as conventional subrogation did not apply because the lender actually relied on an established doctrine that a lender's refinancing of a mortgage debt did not disturb lien priority where an intervening lienor had knowledge of the original mortgage.
|
|||||
| Warnock v. Karm Winand & Patterson, No. 1-06-0341,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, June 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a partner made a drafting error in letter agreements in a real estate transaction and buyers successfully sued the clients, the statute of limitations did not bar the clients' legal malpractice suit against the partner's law firm, because the statute of limitations did not commence until the adverse judgment was entered against the clients.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
