 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Jones, No. 1-05-0020,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, August 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled, under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/110-14 (2004), based on his pre-trial incarceration for a bailable offense, to a credit against some charges he was ordered, at sentencing, to pay because these charges were fines, and no charge could be imposed under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 240/10(c)(2) (2004) because other fines had been imposed.
|
|||||
| People v. Jones, No. 1-05-3883,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, August 10, 2007, Decided, August 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence sufficiently sustained defendant's conviction of first-degree murder under accountability theory in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/9-1(a)(1),(a)(2); it showed that he participated in beating and aggravated kidnapping of victim, and, thus, aided and abetted commission of the murder despite not being present for the murder itself.
|
|||||
| Russell v. Haddon, No. 1-06-0715,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, August 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in disregarding an entire fee petition based on multiple fee entries that the trial court deemed to be excessive; while the subject attorney had a history of excessive fee petitions, the trial court had to either award the fees that were reasonable or provide specific reasons for each fee reduction.
|
|||||
| Hous. Auth. v. Love, NO. 4-07-0063,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, August 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a tenant submitted a grievance within the 30 days prescribed by 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437d(k)(2), (l)(4)(C), the trial court erred in awarding possession of an apartment to the authority in its action for forcible entry and detainer while the grievance procedure was still pending.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Kilfoy, No. 1-06-0415,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, August 13, 2007, Decided, August 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify insured eye surgery business on underlying medical malpractice claim; allegations in underlying action of negligent hiring, administrative supervision, and business operation, all presumed specialized knowledge and skill that brought the complaint within a "professional services" policy exclusion.
|
|||||
| People v. DeBerry, NO. 4-06-0244,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT, August 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to rule on motion in limine regarding the use of defendant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes prior to defendant's testimony did not violate defendant's right to testify at trial as the ruling was within court's discretion, defendant still had the right to choose to testify or not testify, and he chose to testify.
|
|||||
| People v. Gone, No. 3-04-0938,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, August 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use of stun belt did not violate due process rights where, inter alia, defendant was charged with serious crimes of violence, had prior record of violence, and defendant presented a possible escape risk. Allegedly improper jury instruction did not amount to plain error as evidence of guilt was not so closely balanced prejudice might have resulted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
