|
| |
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 - August 29 - September 4, 2007
|
| |
Costello v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1-04-3740,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court erred in entering a judgment for insured on arbitrator's award after insured sought underinsured motorist benefits from insurance company; trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over matter pursuant to Uniform Arbitration Act, 710 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/16, and relevant insurance policy, but Indiana law should have been applied.
|
|
| |
Golf v. Henderson, No. 1-06-2304,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 29, 2007, Decided, August 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Dismissal of insured's 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/2 consumer fraud action against insurance agent and insurer was error as insured stated a cause of action, and as claim was not based on content of policy itself but on agent's failure to fulfill duties, insured's failure to know policy's content did not bar claim nor did economic-loss rule.
|
|
| |
People v. Buckner, No. 1-05-2910,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 29, 2007, Decided, August 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court did not abuse discretion in barring defendant from cross-examining State's DNA analyst regarding fact she pled guilty to theft of unearned overtime pay and was serving term of supervision at time of trial because evidence analyst was motivated or even had ability to testify falsely to garner leniency was too speculative and uncertain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Reed v. Ret. Bd. , No. 1-06-1710,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, August 29, 2007, Decided, August 29, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In denying firefighter right to file application seeking ordinary disability benefits pursuant to 40 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/6-152 (2004), retirement board violated firefighter's procedural due process rights. Granting firefighter the right to file an application was suitable and proper and was required to conform to fundamental principles of justice.
|
|
| |
Chi. Exhibitors Corp. v. Jeepers! of Ill., Inc., No. 1-06-3313,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 30, 2007, Decided, August 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
People v. Lee, No. 1-04-2258,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 30, 2007, Decided, August 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's conviction for armed robbery under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/18-1 and 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/18-2(a)(2) was affirmed because the evidence was sufficient. His enhanced sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing because the trial judge had no authority under the then existing case law to enhance the sentence.
|
|
| |
Tucker v. Bd. of Trs., 1-06-1827,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, August 30, 2007, Decided, August 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Police pension board properly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider former police officer's second application for disability pension benefits; applications for benefits under 40 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3-114.1(a), 3-114.2, could only be considered when they were made by current police officers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
