 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Levaccare v. Levaccare, No. 1-06-1224,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of petition for substitution of judge was not error; contrary to brother's argument, indirect civil contempt petition against him did not commence new proceeding, and as trial court had already ruled on substantial issues in case against brother, substitution of judge by right was not available under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1001(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Pancoe v. Singh, No. 1-05-2513,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allowing defendant's expert to testify in plaintiff's case was not error as defendant was not surprised by testimony that did not exceed deposition testimony and was same as in defendant's case. Damages for breach of agreement were not supported by evidence; there was no basis for rejection of expert's testimony concerning loss of future earnings.
|
|||||
| Universal Cas. Co. v. Lopez, Nos. 1-05-3376 and 1-05-3377, Consolidated,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 17, 2007, Decided, September 17, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurers sought declaratory judgment that insureds' policies were void due to fraudulent misrepresentations on applications. Even if insureds' defaults were admissions of those allegations, as such admissions could not be attributed to non-defaulting third-party defendants, insurers were not entitled to declaratory judgment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
