 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Grady v. Marchini, NO. 4-06-0872,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an injured person did not file an affidavit saying she was seeking in excess of $ 50,000, she was precluded from recovering more than $ 50,000 as Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 222(b) required the judgment to be reduced to $ 50,000. Thus, the court properly reduced the $ 97,700 verdict to $ 50,000.
|
|||||
| People v. Keys, NO. 4-06-0378,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence, bags of heroin, recovered from the area where police lost sight of defendant during a chase which followed an attempted pat-down of defendant was admissible even if defendant's initial seizure was unconstitutional, because the seizure ended when defendant fled and the abandoned drugs were not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| People v. Thompson, NO. 4-06-0900,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's failure to point out hardship term of imprisonment would be on defendant's son and son's mother did not amount to ineffective assistance as defendant failed to establish prejudice; court was aware defendant provided financial support for son. Restitution order was upheld as sentence was not more onerous than one he was told he would get.
|
|||||
| People v. Butler, No. 1-05-3288,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 1, 2007, Decided, August 1, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness harassment statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/32-4a(a), was neither overly broad nor vague on its face; while communication was an element of the statute, that did not draw validly proscribed activities within First Amendment protection, and statute provided citizens with adequate notice regarding the type of conduct that was prohibited.
|
|||||
| Ware v. City of Chicago, No. 1-05-4139,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 1, 2007, Decided, August 1, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that city was not protected from claims of willful and wanton conduct by building inspectors under immunities provided by 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/2-103, 2-105, 2-205, and 2-207; the statutes did not specifically except willful and wanton conduct, and thus, they provided the city with blanket immunity.
|
|||||
| Bergman v. Kelsey, No. 1-06-1296,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion for judgment n.o.v. by a doctor and a hospital in a medical malpractice case was proper because the conflicting expert testimony sufficiently raised a question of fact for the jury to decide. A new trial was not warranted because the jury verdict for the special administrator was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Brown v. ACMI Pop Div., No. 1-06-0870,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation was not entitled to dismissal of part of a singer's complaint as the facts were not undisputed that the display of the singer's photographs on the corporation's Internet site was noncommercial and constituted a service as opposed to a sale of a product for profit, which was prohibited under 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 1075/5 (2002).
|
|||||
| Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. Extended Stay Am., Inc., Nos. 1-06-1310, 1-06-1386, 1-06-1478 (Consolidated),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A suit to declare insurers had no duty to cover or defend insureds in underlying tort suits was properly dismissed, under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-209 (2004), because the insureds did not do any business in Illinois, the insureds were necessary parties, and the doctrine of representation did not apply because it was possible to join absent parties.
|
|||||
| People v. Houston, Docket No. 102225.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, August 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court ordered defendant's case be remanded to trial court for hearing to reconstruct voir dire record to determine whether he had a Batson claim; defense counsel's waiver of court reporter creating Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 608(a)(9) voir dire record precluded finding of whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that regard.
|
|||||
| Ultsch v. Ill. Mun. Ret. Fund, Docket No. 102232.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, August 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court found that the trial court's dismissal of claimant's complaint for administrative review was proper based on claimant's failure to name the retirement fund's board of trustee's within the applicable time limit, as she was required to do; thus, finding public law was unconstitutional as reason for dismissal was not necessary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
