 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gredell v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., No. 1-05-2332,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The consumer's claim against the drug companies alleging consumer fraud based on their alleged false marketing of phenergan expectorants failed. The consumer could not show damage as required under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/10a(a), as he admitted that the products had given him relief.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. Greene v. Young, NO. 4-05-0782,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 296(f) abatement was only meant to be temporary. However, Rule 296(f) was not in effect when the trial court entered its order abating a father's child support. Thus, the abatement between May 26, 1988, and February 1, 1989 (the day Rule 296(f) became effective), was proper, and no payments accrued.
|
|||||
| People v. Mattis, No. 2-05-0586,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because many of the discrepancies in the grand jury proceeding were relatively minor details that could not have affected the grand jury's determination of probable cause and other discrepancies were merely matters of semantics, the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment without prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Pierce, NO. 4-05-0418,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Addition of "or presence" to the pattern instruction for a charge of theft from the person, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/16-1, was proper and was an accurate statement of the law as related to circumstances in which defendant grabbed the victim's money while the money was sitting on a bar in front of the victim.
|
|||||
| People v. Roberson, NO. 4-05-0247,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where traffic stop was lawful at its inception and duration of stop was not excessive, fact that officer performed warrant check on passenger, which violated no constitutionally protected interest in privacy, did not change fundamental nature of traffic stop such that evidence recovered incident to arrest was inadmissible under Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Ready v. United/Goedecke Servs., No. 1-04-1762,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a company's motion in limine to have defendants who had settled claims by the administrator of a decedent's estate included on the jury verdict form for fault apportionment, as the joint and several liability statute, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1117 (1998), applied to defendants that had settled prior to the verdict.
|
|||||
| People v. Phillips (In re Phillips), NO. 5-05-0303,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, August 24, 2006, Decided , August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After respondent was committed under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, three motions seeking discharge were properly summarily dismissed. The first two motions raised issues of the type that had to be raised on direct appeal, and the third raised no new facts and thus was not properly filed under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1401.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. BDO Seidman, LLP, No. 1-05-3867,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 24, 2006, Decided , August 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's action alleging that defendant breached an employment contract by terminating plaintiff's employment because even if an oral contract providing that plaintiff could keep his job for as long as he desired existed, the contract would have violated the statute of frauds, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 80/1 (2004).
|
|||||
| Carlen v. First State Bank, NO. 5-05-0331,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, August 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal was proper of estate coexecutor's claims where original complaint was filed more than six years after he should have known of consequences of judgment entered to clarify amount decedent owed; either statute of repose, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-214.3(c), or statute of limitation, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-205, barred claims.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., Nos. 1-04-2001 & 1-04-3159 (Consolidated),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a whistleblower suit brought by a relator against three retailers, pursuant to 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 175/4(b)(2), the trial court properly dismissed the relator as a party where the allegations in the complaints were based upon a combination of direct action and information gleaned from public disclosures readily available in the news media.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
