 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Applebaum v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 1-06-2709,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death and survival action, the appellate court found that the nullity rule applied, because the representative of an estate was an inactive attorney pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 756(a)(5) at the time he filed the action on behalf of the estate, and there were no unique circumstances present to justify a deviation from the rule.
|
|||||
| Blount v. Stroud, Nos. 1-06-2428 and 1-06-2968 Consolidated,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit wherein a former employee alleged retaliatory discharge, it was held that the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-101 et seq., preempted the claim and that the Illinois trial courts lack the subject matter jurisdiction to entertain any civil rights claims, including those in which the defendant was a private entity.
|
|||||
| Campuzano v. Peritz, No. 1-06-0119,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in entering judgment barring alleged tortfeasors, pursuant to Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 91(b), from rejecting arbitration award entered in favor of claimant; alleged tortfeasors could be barred from rejecting arbitration award for failing to comply with discovery and, as a result, being barred from presenting evidence at arbitration.
|
|||||
| City of Chicago v. Zappani, No. 1-06-1896,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a property owner's traverse and motion to dismiss a condemnation action, as a form letter sent to the owner which made an offer significantly below the appraised value of the property did not constitute good faith negotiation as required by the Eminent Domain Act, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 30/10-5-5 et seq (2007).
|
|||||
| Eighteen Invs. v. Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp., No. 1-06-3122,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In failed motion to vacate foreclosure sale, purchaser alleged mortgage had been released. In suit against mortgagee, it alleged new grounds for reliefwrong property index and lot numbers. Purchaser's claims in suit were barred by res judicata as they related to same transaction as motion to vacate; that suit raised new theories was immaterial.
|
|||||
| Fin. Freedom v. Kirgis, No. 1-06-0523,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The two-year limitations period set forth in 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/18-12(b) and the requirements of 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-209(b) did not preclude or time bar a mortgagees independent mortgage foreclosure claim against the land itself, despite the death of the mortgagor, as it was an in rem action that survived the mortgagor's death.
|
|||||
| In re Guardianship of J.D., No. 1-06-3069,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed father's appeal of judgment temporarily removing him as co-guardian of his 35-year-old disabled child; it did so because it lacked jurisdiction over appeal, which was not taken from a final judgment as required by Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 301, 303, and 304, and did not involve a minor, as required by Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 306(a)(5).
|
|||||
| Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. v. Summit Real Estate Group, LLC, No. 1-07-0441,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed as law firm was improperly disqualified from representing itself since fraudulent conveyance, violation of Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, promissory estoppel, and fraudulent misrepresentation theories were used solely to collect attorney's fee and fell within Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(c)(3).
|
|||||
| People v. Allen, No. 1-06-1943,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION, September 28, 2007, Decided, September 28, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court committed reversible error when if refused defendant's proffered expert to testify on eyewitness identification as the case involved an attempted robbery wherein the victim was in a high stress situation when she allegedly saw defendant commit the crime and, therefore, the trial court had to determine the relevance of the testimony.
|
|||||
| People v. Angel S. (In re Angel S.), No. 2-06-0806,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, September 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order committing respondent to Department of Mental Health for 90 days was reversed because trial court failed to consider less restrictive treatment alternatives to hospitalization; director of mental health facility who recommended hospitalization did not explore intermediate care facilities or other less restrictive alternatives.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
