 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Curtis, No. 3-03-1029,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to consider Boose factors before placing defendant in restraints at defendant's aggravated battery trial was a violation of defendant's Ill. Const. art. I, § 2 due process rights, but his failure to object to use of restraints and the circumstances meant plain error doctrine did not apply and issue was waived.
|
|||||
| People v. Meyers, No. 2-04-1158,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, August 15, 2006, Decided , August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that defendant was unfit to stand trial in a prior prosecution did not support a continuing presumption of unfitness to stand trial in a subsequent prosecution. The prior finding was too remote in time, defendant was not diagnosed with a continuing disorder, and his conduct during the subsequent trial did not indicate unfitness.
|
|||||
| People v. Pollards, No. 1-05-0451,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant allegedly possessed a stolen car, instructions on definitions of stolen property and theft, under Ill. Pattern Jury Instructions Crim. Nos. 13.33G and 13.01 (4th ed. 2000), were mandatory, and not requesting them was ineffective assistance as, had they been given, there was a reasonable chance the trial's result would have differed.
|
|||||
| People v. Ruiz, Nos. 1-04-3410,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, August 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The record did not show defendant validly waived his right to a jury trial, despite his written waiver, because there was no discussion of the waiver in open court when he was present, so it was not shown that he understandingly waived a jury, as 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/103-6 (2004) required. The issue could be considered under the plain error rule.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilke, No. 3-03-0732,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was not ineffective under Sixth Amendment in failing to request Frye hearing on admissibility of State's expert's formula for determining how much methamphetamine could be manufactured from certain amount of pseudoephedrine. No Frye hearing was necessary as such manufacture involved simple chemistry.
|
|||||
| Std. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marx, No. 3-05-0524,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to homeowner's insurer on its action to determine its obligations under policy it issued to insured for damages caused to storage facility when insured tried to start a motorcycle; exception to policy exclusions for "dead storage" items did not apply because insured was attempting to start motorcycle.
|
|||||
| People v. Hannah C. (In re Hannah C.), NO. 5-05-0154,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in entering an order for involuntary treatment of a patient pursuant to 405 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-107.1 (2004), because while the evidence supported finding that treatment was warranted, the trial court erred in striking an alternative treatment contained in the request for treatment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
