Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance ...
CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a key part of the federal bribery statute often used in many Chicago-area corruption cases — including that of ex-Illinois House Speaker ...
This, Regnier continued, makes Hoffman Estates part of a general pattern of cases where constitutional concerns the Court has used proactively in other situations are often dismissed by it when the case involves drug-law enforcement, a criticism made as well by Justice John Paul Stevens, who called the Court "a loyal foot soldier in the ...
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-cv-02145, is a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois regarding political patronage in the hiring of public officials and First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan was the state’s most powerful politician in 2018 when he allegedly met at his downtown Chicago law office with then-Ald. Danny Solis to discuss Solis ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had ...
Thomas J. Maloney (1925–2008) was a judge in Cook County, Illinois who served from 1977 until his indictment for bribery in 1991. Since 1981, the court was being investigated by the FBI in Operation Greylord, [1] and he was eventually convicted [2] on four counts of accepting bribes (including fixing three murder cases). He served 12 years of ...
Case history; Prior: 58 Ill. App. 3d 57, 373 N. E. 2d 1013: Holding; When a search warrant specifies the person or people named in the warrant to be searched and the things to be seized, there is no authority to search others not named in the warrant, unless the warrant specifically mentions that the unnamed parties are involved in criminal activity or exigent circumstances are clearly shown.