 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kinn v. Prairie Farms, No. 2-06-0106,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The circuit court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff employee's unilateral mistake and mutual mistake claims against defendant employer where neither party had appealed an arbitrator's approval of the agreement settling a worker's compensation claim within 20 days as required by 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/19(f)(1).
|
|||||
| People v. Babolcsay, No. 2-05-0680,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in suppressing a police officer's testimony that took place during a videotape recording of the arrest where the conversation took place as a result of the officer's investigation of a possible DUI offense, not as a result of the videotape recording, and thus, the testimony was not the fruit of the poisonous tree.
|
|||||
| People v. So Young Kim, No. 2-05-1130,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, November 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's admission of the affidavit of an officer who certified the Breathalyzer machine that was used to determine defendant's breath-alcohol content did not infringe defendant's confrontation rights because a Breathalyzer certification was not testimonial in nature.
|
|||||
| People v. Adeline E. (In re Daphnie E.), Nos. 1-06-1783 & 1-06-1784 (cons.),
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Orders terminating parental rights were affirmed; in addition to inconsistent visitation, the mother failed to acknowledge and fully deal with her mental health issues and was found to be unfit pursuant to 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/1(D)(b). The record also supported the trial court's finding of the father's unfitness pursuant to § 1(D)(p).
|
|||||
| People v. Delgado, No. 1-05-1592,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction was reversed because pattern instruction given did not define "sexual conduct" and thus, failed to correctly state law applicable to case, in which defendant was charged with transmitting semen onto complainant's stomach. Lack of physical evidence and inconsistent testimony did not warrant reversal.
|
|||||
| People v. Rohlfs, No. 3-05-0272,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, November 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant called elderly women from jail, posed as a relative, and requested money, his conviction for felony theft by deception under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/16-1(a)(2) was upheld because his request to represent himself was properly denied, a victim's deposition at home was proper, and caller ID evidence was properly admitted.
|
|||||
| Terrell L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. (In re Terrell L.), No. 1-06-1356,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION, November 17, 2006, Decided , November 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's interpretation of 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 405/2-27 that required finding of unfitness of minor's guardian before change in guardianship could be made was incorrect; once minor's parents were found unfit, all subsequent guardianship considerations were to be based on the minor's bests interests, not the fitness of current guardian.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
