 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Sanders, No. 3-04-0551,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's question did not require trial judge to provide jury with definition of "knowingly," and therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to require trial judge provide jury with definition of term. Right to confrontation was not violated by admission of expert's deposition as expert was subject to cross-examination in first trial.
|
|||||
| People v. Oliver, No. 2-05-0216,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of two counts of unlawful possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver was proper because the officer's testimony to the grand jury was deceptive in that its hearsay nature was concealed and it also mischaracterized the observations of the actual eyewitness so as to establish probable cause where none existed.
|
|||||
| People v. Taylor, No. 2-05-0400,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in imposing extended sentences based on defendant's convictions following his guilty plea to aggravated battery and criminal trespass to a residence; pursuant to 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-8-2(b), the record did not demonstrate that when defendant pleaded guilty, he knew extended-term sentencing was a possibility.
|
|||||
| People v. Whitney, No. 2-04-0230,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's postjudgment petition filed under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1401 regarding the propriety of his sentencing; the trial court did not, as defendant suggested, dismiss his petition, but, rather, the trial court denied his petition on the merits after rejecting the argument that he asserted in it.
|
|||||
| Vill. of Roselle v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 2-06-0294,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Illinois Commerce Commission did not have exclusive jurisdiction under 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/9-252 over a village's accounting claim against a utility company. Even if the electric tax involved was a rate, the claim did not allege that it was excessive or discriminatory, but that the utility owed electric tax to the village.
|
|||||
| Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. McDermott Int'l, Inc., No. 1-05-3827,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit regarding a refinery fire that was allegedly caused by an elbow pipefitting, the manufacturer's third-party complaint against the refinery's prior owner was barred by the construction statute of repose, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-214, because more than 10 years had elapsed since the installation of the pipefitting.
|
|||||
| People v. Moore, No. 3-05-0533,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that the defendant's post-arrest statement to police was not voluntarily given and, thus, granting his motion to suppress; the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of his post-arrest statement indicated he was promised a video and audio recording of his statement and the promise was not kept.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 1-05-4045,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illinois had a more significant interest than Michigan in applying its rules on product liability, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages to a case involving an lawn tractor with an alleged safety design defect, even though the injuries involved occurred in Michigan, as decisions about the inclusion of safety devices were made in Illinois.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
