|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Illinois - September 21, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
P.I.&I. Motor Express, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n (Faulkenberry), No. 5-05-0450WC,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION DIVISION, September 21, 2006, Decision Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission was not obligated to enforce either an agreement between the parties, or Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.54, because 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/23 prohibited an employer and employee from entering into an agreement depriving the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission of jurisdiction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Sutherland, Docket No. 99047.,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, September 21, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because evidence, including mitochondrial DNA evidence, hair samples, and fiber evidence, was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain defendant's convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and first degree murder of a 10 year old child, the convictions, as well as death penalty on the murder charge, were affirmed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, Ltd., No. 1-04-2950,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, September 21, 2006, Decided , September 21, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Client's legal malpractice action failed because, inter alia, client, who was awarded over $ 3 million in a settlement with her former husband, failed to establish that she suffered damages due to the firm's representation, there were no erroneous evidentiary rulings, and defense counsel's closing argument did not deprive the client of fair trial.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|