 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Felzak v. Hruby, No. 2-05-0848,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying parents motion to dismiss grandparent's petition to enforce an order allowing grandparent visitation with daughter of parents, her granddaughter, and in holding the parents in contempt for violating it; the order was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or lack of consideration and could be violated.
|
|||||
| Nix v. Whitehead, No. 1-05-1412,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in refusing to allow a passenger to reject an arbitration award in favor of drivers in the passenger's negligence action, as tardiness of 17 minutes did not constitute the passenger's failure to be present at the arbitration hearing for purposes of Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 91(a).
|
|||||
| People v. Dixon, No. 1-03-2927,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 5, 2006, Decided , September 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right to counsel was not violated when trial court granted counsel's motion to withdraw but refused to appoint alternate counsel; record did not reveal counsel was necessary to investigate defendant's claims. Denial of motion for continuance to present witness did not violate due process rights, as defendant had time to secure witnesses' presence.
|
|||||
| People v. Natal, No. 1-05-1643,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction of burglary under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/19-3(a). Other than defendant's possession of property stolen from the premises, there was no corroborating evidence of his guilt, as fingerprint samples taken from the apartment did not match defendant's fingerprints.
|
|||||
| People v. One 1999 Lexus, No. 2-05-0439,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A vehicle was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-303(g), as there was no need to formally introduce stipulated documents into evidence or for the trial court to formally admit them. The documents proved that the vehicle owner's grandson's driver's license was suspended or revoked for a DUI conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Shanklin, No. 1-04-1360,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 5, 2006, Decided , September 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Handgun should have been suppressed as fruit of warrantless search as consent to search was not given and no exigent circumstances existed; no explanation for failure to get warrant was provided, there was no evidence defendant was seen with weapon since shooting, and there was no evidence defendant would escape if not swiftly apprehended.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coe, No. 1-05-1891,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the insurance policy's phrase "amount payable under this coverage" was not ambiguous but clearly referred to the $ 100,000 available under the underinsured motorist provision, not the total amount of the insured's damages, the coverage was reduced by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received.
|
|||||
| People v. David B. (In re David B.), NO. 5-05-0416,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although 405 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-807 required examiner to attempt personal interview, involuntary commitment was upheld despite lack of interview as patient refused to cooperate. Order was not against manifest weight of evidence as, inter alia, patient had psychiatric history and failed to cooperate in psychotherapy and medication treatment.
|
|||||
| Vill. of Mundelein v. Wis. Cent. R.R., No. 2-05-0492,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Village ordinance prohibiting a train from obstructing a highway at a railroad grade crossing for more than 10 minutes, thereby addressing railroad safety, was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C.S. § 20101 et seq.; the ordinance clearly made "reference to" railroad safety and thus, fell within the scope of 49 U.S.C.S. § 20106.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
