 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Niebuhr, No. 1-05-3964,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, December 6, 2006, Decided , December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper because insurer's household exclusion unambiguously applied to bar coverage to insured in third-party contribution action, under 215 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4 and 5/143.01(a), in that the contribution action sought recovery for injuries sustained by insured's daughter; thus, insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.
|
|||||
| Gurnitz v. Lasits-Rohline Serv., No. 3-06-0216,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a claimant's motion to amend his complaint under 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 305/19(g) was reversed, and the case was remanded as the amended complaint merely sought a judgment on a workers' compensation award, not a review. Further, the proposed amendment met the factors to be considered in determining whether to permit the amendment.
|
|||||
| Noren v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 1-04-2734,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court order in a declaratory judgment action was reversed and remanded as the court abused its discretion by striking an insurer's jury demand. The insurer was entitled under Ill. Const. art. I, § 13 and 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-701(d) to have a jury assess the witnesses and make findings of fact as to the cause of property damage.
|
|||||
| People v. Calderon, No. 2-05-0532,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by prohibiting defendant from introducing evidence of all three of victim's prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, as trial court allowed most recent felony conviction, and prejudicial effect of additional felony convictions would have outweighed probative value. Identification testimony was properly admitted.
|
|||||
| People v. Golden, Nos. 2-05-0307 & 2-05-0308 cons.,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of the trial court granting defendants' postconviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was affirmed, and the case was remanded with directions to the trial court to permit defendants to file petitions under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/122-6 requesting different relief than they previously requested.
|
|||||
| People v. Higginbotham, No. 3-04-0827,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's dismissal of defendant's pro se pleading entitled "Petition for Habeas Corpus" was affirmed because the circuit court had the authority to re-characterize defendant's pleading as a postconviction petition, and it was not reversible error for the circuit court to dismiss the petition as being frivolous and patently without merit.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., No. 1-05-3824,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A relator's qui tam action under the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 175/1 et seq. (2002), was properly dismissed where the Illinois Attorney General sought dismissal, the relator had an opportunity to address the dismissal in a 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 175.4(c)(2)(A) hearing, and there was no fraud or bad faith.
|
|||||
| Gacki v. Bartels, No. 2-05-1261,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was not entitled to summary judgment on his action for an easement by necessity over defendants' property because the landowner had not shown that his parcel became landlocked at the time of severance, or that an easement was necessary to the common grantor at the time of severance in 1957.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
