26.01.2014 Views

2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly

2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly

2011 CASE REPORT - Illinois General Assembly

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Criminal Code of 1961 As used in the Code’s provision concerning money<br />

laundering, the term "proceeds" means "profits" not "receipts". People v. Universal<br />

Public Transportation ...................................................................................................... 21<br />

Criminal Code of 1961 The refusal to produce a driver's license and proof of<br />

insurance upon demand of an officer does not, on its own, constitute obstruction of a<br />

peace officer under the Code. People v. Bohannon ........................................................ 22<br />

Criminal Code of 1961 Throwing contraband over a privacy fence while in view<br />

of the police does not qualify as obstructing justice under the Code. People v. Comage. 22<br />

Unified Code of Corrections The Code’s intrastate detainer notice-by-mail<br />

provisions do not currently contain safeguards requiring the State to actually receive<br />

the required notice of demand for a speedy trial. People v. Mullins ............................... 23<br />

Unified Code of Corrections The Code authorizes a trial court to order the taking,<br />

analysis, and indexing of a qualifying offender's DNA, and the payment of the analysis<br />

fee, only if that defendant is not currently registered in the DNA database. People v.<br />

Marshall ........................................................................................................................... 23<br />

Unified Code of Corretions For the purposes of calculating good conduct credit<br />

under the Code, the date the defendant is sentenced is counted as the first day of the<br />

defendant’s sentence and not as a day of presentence custody. People v. Williams ....... 24<br />

Unified Code of Corrections The date of conviction for purposes of the Code’s<br />

Class X felony enhancement provision means the date of entry of the sentencing order<br />

and not the date the defendant pled guilty to the offense. People v. Holmes .................. 24<br />

Unified Code of Corrections The Code permits the imposition of a consecutive<br />

term of imprisonment following a natural life sentence. People v. Petrenko ................. 25<br />

Unified Code of Corrections The imposition of an enhanced mandatory<br />

supervised release term under the Code must be predicated on a prior conviction and<br />

not on 2 acts arising from one incident. People v. Anderson .......................................... 26<br />

Unified Code of Corrections Petitions for the revocation of fines under the Code<br />

are free-standing, collateral actions that may be filed more than 30 days after the entry<br />

of judgment. People v. Mingo ......................................................................................... 26<br />

Code of Civil Procedure A judge has no duty to automatically refer a petition for<br />

substitution for cause unless specified threshold requirements for that petition are met.<br />

In re Estate of Wilson ....................................................................................................... 27<br />

Code of Civil Procedure When calculating damages under a provision of the Code<br />

that requires a holdover tenant to pay double the yearly value of the lands, the court<br />

must use the net rental value of the lands, rather than the gross rental value of the lands.<br />

Rexam Beverage Can Company v. Bolger ....................................................................... 28<br />

Sureties Act The protections afforded to sureties under the Act do not necessarily<br />

apply to guarantors. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. ...................... 28<br />

Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act A<br />

claim of an alleged sexual assault by a treating physician does not arise out of patient<br />

care for the purposes of the Act's 2-year statute of repose. Kaufmann v. Schroeder. ...... 29<br />

Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act The<br />

Bi-State Development Agency of the <strong>Illinois</strong>-Missouri Metropolitan District qualifies<br />

as a local public entity under the Act. Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the<br />

<strong>Illinois</strong>-Missouri Metropolitan District ............................................................................ 29<br />

4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!