 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dep't of Human Servs. v. Sciortino, No. 1-05-4023,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of claim for reimbursement for services given to mental health patient was error, as limitations statute, 405 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-113, showed limitations period did not apply to claim against him, but it did apply to spouse as "responsible relative" and, thus, charges assessed against her prior to specified date were time barred.
|
|||||
| Film & Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., No. 1-05-3023,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim was subject to summary judgment because there was no evidence that the employer had an enforceable contract with the client and no evidence that the former employees misrepresented employment status to client. Conversion claim based on contract terminable at will was not sustainable.
|
|||||
| Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Pierre-Louis, No. 1-05-3272,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding the insurer had duty to defend the condominium unit owner in the underlying action; complaint in underlying action alleged damages arising out of that portion of the condominium unit owner's premises which was part of building's common elements, for which coverage was not excluded under relevant policy language.
|
|||||
| Kim v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 1-05-3568,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an employee, a financial planner, voluntarily participated in a capital accumulation plan (CAP), under which part of his compensation was paid in restricted stock, the provision of the CAP under which the employee forfeited part of the stock upon termination did not violate public policy as reflected in the Wage Payment and Collection Act.
|
|||||
| Moller v. Lipov, Nos. 1-04-3640 and 1-05-0061 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for the executor and against the health care providers in a wrongful death and survival action was affirmed as the verdict for the executor was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, evidence supported the defense of comparative negligence, which was sufficiently pleaded under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-613(d).
|
|||||
| People v. Darren M. (In re Darren M.), No. 1-05-1554,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In juvenile case, failure to notify noncustodial father did not deprive court of jurisdiction because, inter alia, defendant did not have regular or significant contact with father. Expert's methods of evaluation were generally accepted in the community, and expert's recommendation was supported by evidence other than test objected to by defendant.
|
|||||
| People v. Davis, No. 1-01-1966,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's Batson challenge was upheld as evidence was not strong enough to show that prosecutors were unaware of venireperson's rap sheet when they struck the venireperson. Sentence of 18 years for second-degree murder was upheld where it was within statutory range and was not manifestly disproportionate to nature of offense committed.
|
|||||
| People v. Gorosteata, No. 1-04-2469,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The controlled substance assessment ordered against defendant was upheld as mandatory and there was no obligation for the trial court to have inquired into defendant's ability to pay the same. However, defendant was entitled to have the pretrial detention credit he earned applied to the assessment under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/411.2.
|
|||||
| People v. Ross, No. 1-04-2017,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing defendant's pro se petition seeking order directing city police department to release certain documents he sought related to his criminal case, on trial court's own motion and without notice to defendant; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-101 et seq. did not permit dismissal without notice and error was not harmless.
|
|||||
| People v. Ward, No. 1-04-1852,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 29, 2006, Decided , September 29, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated battery with a firearm, as a witness displayed certainty in his identification of defendant at the time of confrontation and though the witness's opportunity to view the shooter at the time of the shooting was short, it was facilitated by the witness's close physical proximity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
