 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jones v. Rallos, No. 1-04-2979,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, October 12, 2006, Decided , October 12, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding for patient in medical malpractice action was reversed because the trial court committed reversible error by failing to bar questions about the doctor failing the board-certified examination for internal medicine; since the doctor did not testify as an expert, the doctor's failure to pass the board-certified examination was not relevant.
|
|||||
| Poilevey v. Spivack, No. 1-05-2275,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, October 12, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of atrial court order that a judgment debtor pay a principal amount, prejudgment interest, fees, and costs under a foreign judgment, and postjudgment attorney fees was affirmed as the doctrines of merger and res judicata did not preclude the award of postjudgment attorney fees, and the debtor waived his lack of notice and hearing argument.
|
|||||
| People v. Clifton R. (In re Clifton R.), No. 1-05-2705,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-4-3, requiring respondent to submit swab saliva samples for DNA purposes, did not violate search and seizure rights of respondent, juvenile who was found to have committed drug offense. Appellate court was bound by state high court decisions providing that § 5-4-3 was constitutional as applied to adults and juveniles.
|
|||||
| People v. James, No. 1-05-1813,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, for retrial, hired codefendant's attorneys after codefendant was acquitted, disqualification of attorneys because it was possible that they would be called as impeachment witnesses against codefendant was improper. There was no evidence of attorneys' potential testimony, and any such testimony was likely inadmissible hearsay.
|
|||||
| People v. Stanitz, No. 2-05-0830,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, October 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State's voluntary surrender of defendant to federal authorities did not toll the speedy-trial term of 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/103-5(a), and defendant was not brought to trial within the time required by the statute, the trial court properly dismissed the charge of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Schmitz v. Binette, No. 1-05-2710,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, October 13, 2006, Decided , October 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice case, patient's spouse should have been permitted to question defense expert about his deposition admission that he commonly performed test that he claimed in trial testimony was not required by standard of care. As there was conflicting expert testimony, this information was relevant to determine expert credibility.
|
|||||
| Smith, Allen, Mendenhall, Emons & Selby v. Thomson Corp., NO. 5-05-0029,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT, October 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm, which was the class representative of a class action lawsuit alleging violation of Illinois' and Minnesota's consumer fraud statutes, failed to establish that it had suffered any damages at all as a result of defendants' practice of adding a shipping and handling charge to monthly billing statements without identifying the added charge.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
