10 results for 'judge:"Cunningham"'.
J. Cunningham finds that the appeals court properly reversed the lower court's decision to deny the city's petition for an injunction against the company to enforce compliance with a city ordinance requiring that any property within city limmits be connected to the city sewage system upon sale or transfer. The law expressly authorizes the city to seek injunctive relief for continuous violations of the city's sewage ordinances. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 129164, Categories: Municipal Law, Restraining Order
J. Cunningham finds that the appeals court improperly reversed defendant's convictions, finding his motion for substitution of judge was exempt from being deemed abandoned because the court never ruled on it. Defendant never obtained a ruling on his motion for substitution, and it must be deemed abandoned, otherwise a defendant could knowingly build error into the record by allowing a motion to remain unaddressed. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 128474, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Judiciary
J. Cunningham finds that the appeals court improperly ordered the Illinois State Police to comply with the firearm owners' Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the revocation of their Firearm Owner Identification Cards. An individual's application for a FOID card and subsequent revocation letter are not properly characterized as "public records." However, the firearm owners may obtain the information they seek through the Firearms Services Bureau. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 128275, Categories: Administrative Law, Public Record, Firearms
J. Cunningham finds that the court of federal claims improperly ruled in "rails-to-trails conversion" claims without determining the property owners lacked a compensable interest in the parcels. Reversed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: November 22, 2023, Case #: 2022-1381, Categories: Property
J. Cunningham finds that the appeals court properly reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss this personal injury suit stemming from a car accident involving a driver that passed away a year into the resulting litigation. Because an estate was never opened for the deceased driver and there was no personal representative to defend the lawsuit, the plaintiff acted properly in moving to appoint a special representative. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 128468, Categories: Civil Procedure, Tort, Vehicle
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Cunningham finds that the lower court improperly overturned defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he tried to hit a police officer with his car. The trial court did not err by prohibiting defense counsel from cross-examining the police officer who fired shot at the defendant as to whether he could lose his job if the shooting was found to be unjustified. This limitation was actually favorable to defendant because it prevented the state from introducing evidence that a police board panel did in fact find the use of force justified. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 127535, Categories: Confrontation, Assault, Discovery
J. Cunningham finds that the trial court improperly ruled in claims concerning a patent for methods of protecting network connectable devices because the decision was improperly based on a collateral estoppel decision that has since been vacated. Reversed in part.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: 22-1048, Categories: Civil Procedure, Patent
J. Cunningham finds that the district court properly dismissed claims concerning a patent for a poll based networking system because the asserted claim is patent ineligible. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Cunningham, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 2022-1308, Categories: Patent