Ad
related to: illinois objections to subpoenas and date of payment
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
As concessions to the Illinois Municipal League, the bill was clarified to say that public bodies would not have to keep additional records beyond what was already required, and that requesters would pay for copying costs. By the time the bill passed both houses of the General Assembly, the Illinois Municipal League had secured 11 amendments.
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length. [1] The syllabus of the case stated:
A subpoena duces tecum (pronounced in English / s ə ˈ p iː n ə ˌ dj uː s iː z ˈ t iː k ə m / sə-PEE-nə DEW-seez TEE-kəm), or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.
Illinois State Board of Elections received 58 objectors to nomination papers before Monday's deadline; details could be released after Dec. 19 meeting
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript.
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Scott, the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel. To emphasize the importance of court-appointed counsel, the Court opined, "[T]he interest protected by the right to ...
A petition filed by five voters on Thursday seeks to bar former President Donald Trump from the Illinois Republican primary election ballot in March, claiming he is ineligible to hold office ...
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.