February 6, 2014

Trucker’s Failure To Raise Commerce Clause Defense Dooms Tax Appeal

Witte Brothers is an intersate trucking company. After an audit, under protest, Witte paid Illinois for “pass-through” miles [distance driven in Illinois without picking up or delivering goods].

Witte sued Illinois for reimbursement of the taxes. The trial court ruled that the Illinois Income Tax Act did not allow the State to tax truckers pass-through miles. So Illinois appealed.

Among other things, Witte argued in the appellate court that taxing pass-through miles violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But Witte did not raise this argument in the trial court, nor allege it as a separate count in its complaint. So the First District Illinois Appellate Court refused to consider the argument.

No need to worry if you’re concerned the State got beat out of tax revenue. The appellate court reversed, and ruled that pass-through miles are taxable. [“pass-through miles establish a physical and economic presence in Illinois which must be taxed …”]

This is the sort of ruling that annoys illinoisappellatelawyerblog.com. The appellate court would review the Commerce Clause argument de novo [no deference to the trial court]. If what the trial court says is inconsequential anyway, then the appellate court should not be allowed to avoid the issue because it was not raised in the trial court. So now we have precedent that blesses a tax that may violate the United States Constitution.

Read the whole case, Witte Brothers Exchange v. Department of Revenue, 2013 IL App (1st) 120850.

Bookmark and Share

April 2, 2011

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses And Remands Medical Malpractice Appeal Taken Under Voided Statute

Donald Cookson sued Todd Price, a physical therapy assistant, and the Institute for Physical Medicine, Price’s employer, for medical malpractice. As required by an Illinois statute, Cookson filed an affidavit and a report by a physician swearing to Price’s malpractice. But Price claimed the affidavit did not comply with the statute because it was signed by a physician specializing in physical medicine, not a physical therapy assistant. So Price asked the trial court to dismiss the complaint.

Cookson first opposed Price’s dismissal request. But then deferring to Price’s argument, Cookson asked the trial court to allow him to file a new affidavit, this time signed by a physical therapy assistant. Price opposed the new affidavit because, he argued, it was offered more than 90 days after the complaint was filed, a violation of the Illinois statute.

The trial court agreed with Price and dismissed the lawsuit. But the appellate court reversed, ruling that the trial court had power to allow Cookson to file an amended complaint with a new affidavit, even more than 90 days after the case had been filed.

The Illinois Supreme Court took Price’s appeal. While the case was pending, the supreme court ruled that the statute containing the 90-day restriction was unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutionality had nothing to do with 90-day requirement.

When an amended statute is declared unconstitutional, “The effect … is to revert to the statute as it existed before the amendment.” In this case, because the pertinent statute had been voided as unconstitutional, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that “the reasons upon which this court relied in granting leave to appeal no longer exist.” So the supreme court “decline[d] to address the merits of the substantive issue raised … and dismiss[ed] this appeal.”

The supreme court sent the case back to the trial court to “determine whether plaintiff’s [Cookson] pleadings meet the current requirements of [the statute].” Read the whole case, Cookson v. Price, No. 109321 (12/23/10), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

November 28, 2010

No Jurisdiction For Interlocutory Appeal In SLAPP Lawsuit

Robert Stein and Clinton Krislov both are attorneys. Stein sued Krislov and his lawfirm for libel. The alleged libelous statements were made in a letter Krislov wrote to a federal judge who was presiding over a class action case. Krislov’s letter stated that Stein misrepresented to the court his experience as class counsel.

Krislov asked the trial court to dismiss Stein’s libel case. Among other things, Krislov asserted immunity from Stein’s lawsuit based on the Citizen Partcipation Act. The Act gives immunity to a person who was sued as a result of exercising his rights to free speech and to participation in government.

The trial court denied Krislov’s request to dismiss. Krislov appealed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (appeal as of right from an interlocutory injunction) and the Act. The First District Illinois Appellate Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Krislov’s appeal. The appellate court stated (1) the denial of Krislov’s request to dismiss did not qualify for appeal under Rule 307; (2) the Act could not provide appellate jurisdiction where the Illinois Supreme Court had not.

This is how the appellate court explained it:

Defendants {Krislov] contend this court has jurisdiction to review this appeal as an interlocutory appeal based on Rule 307(a)(1) and the language of section 20(a) of the Act.

When determining whether a trial court’s action constitutes an appealable injunctive order, the substance of the action, not the form, is relevant.

We recognize that the meaning of “injunction” should be construed broadly … however, the motion to dismiss in this case does not constitute an injunction. Defendants were not required to do anything or forced to refrain from anything as a result of the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss. Defendants were not restrained in their speech where the trial court issued no directive regarding defendants’ ability to speak about the case. In its order, the trial court simply concluded that the Act did not apply to the case at bar because of the newly created immunity could not be applied retroactively. Defendants retain the ability to defend Krislov’s actions in the underlying lawsuit where they can assert the same arguments in defense of Krislov’s letter despite the lack of immunity from the Act.”


The appellate court also rejected Krislov’s argument that the Act itself provided appellate jurisdiction.

We previously determined that the denial of the motion to dismiss in this case was not a final judgment and not injunctive in nature. Though we recognize that statutes are presumed constitutional, if the legislature was attempting to provide appellate jurisdiction from a nonfinal order not falling within the dictates of Rule 307, a constitutional conflict would exist … “If a supreme court rule does not grant the right to appeal from a nonfinal judgment, then there is no right to an interlocutory appeal and the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal … Thus, a statute that claims to give the right to an interlocutory appeal not covered by supreme court rules or to give the appellate court jurisdiction over that appeal would violate article VI, section 6, of the constitution. Such a statute also would violate the separation-of-powers clause of the article II, section 1, of the constitution … Appellate jurisdiction is, therefore, not conferred by section 20(a) of the Act.”

Read the whole case, Stein v. Krislov, 1-09-3478 (11/8/10), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

November 21, 2009

Unconstitutional For Illinois SLAPPs Act To Grant Appellate Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Order

Louis Mund sued the Browns and the Furkins for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Browns and the Furkins asked the trial court to dismiss the case. They argued that the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (statute that “aims to protect defendants from ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ (SLAPPs), which harass citizens for exercising constitutional rights, such as the right to petition the government.”) The trial court denied the request to dismiss the case, so the Browns and the Furkins appealed.

The Browns and the Furkins argued that the Citizen Participation Act expressly allowed an appeal “from a trial court order denying” a motion to dismiss. But the Fifth District Illinois Appellate Court refused to recognize that part of the statute, and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The appellate court ruled that the legislative attempt to make the order immediately appealable conflicted with the Illinois Constitution in two respects:

• First, the constitution allows only final orders to be appealed, and permits only the Illinois Supreme Court to make rules for appeal of interlocutory orders.
• Second, the legislature violated the separation-of-powers clause of the constitution by attempting to exercise a power reserved to the supreme court.

Here is the court’s explanation:

If … we were to interpret the language of the [Citizen Participation] Act as the defendants request … we would encounter a constitutional conflict. The Illinois Constitution … grants the right to appeal from a final judgment only … However, it gives the right to make rules governing interlocutory appeals exclusively to the supreme court … Thus, a statute that claims to give a right to an interlocutory appeal not covered by supreme court rules or to give the appellate court jurisdiction over that appeal would violate article VI, section 6, of the constitution. Such a statute also would violate the separation-of-powers clause in article II, section 1, of the constitution … [No branch of the government may exercise powers reserved to another branch.]

Read the whole case, Mund v. Brown, No. 5-08-0178 (8/21/09), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

January 8, 2009

City’s Defense On Appeal Raises Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, So Cross Appeal Unnecessary

Flying J Inc. bought 50 acres of land in New Haven, Indiana intending to develop a travel plaza, hotel, and restaurant complex. But New Haven didn’t want the development and twice denied zoning variances. Flying J sued in Indiana state court, lost in the trial court, then won in the appellate court.

Undeterred, New Haven amended its zoning ordinance to limit developments like Flying J’s travel plaza to two acres. Flying J sued again, this time in federal district court. Flying J charged that its rights to equal protection and due process had been violated by New Haven’s actions in amending the zoning ordinance.

New Haven asked the federal district court to dismiss the case because, the city argued, (1) it was not ripe for decision, so the court did not have jurisdiction to hear it, and (2) the complaint did not state a cause of action. The ripeness argument was based on a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled an aggrieved landowner must seek remedies in appropriate local agencies and courts before suing in federal court. In this case, because Flying J did not ask the New Haven Plan Commission for a zoning variance, New Haven argued, Flying J’s federal lawsuit was not ripe. The district court disagreed, and ruled that Flying J’s claim was ripe, so jurisdiction was proper. But the court then dismissed Flying J’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Flying J appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In its reply brief on appeal, New Haven again asserted the same ripeness argument that it made, and lost, in the district court. Flying J countered that New Haven was not permitted to raise the argument on appeal because the city had not filed a cross-appeal.

The Seventh Circuit rejected Flying J’s argument because the court must consider subject-matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation. Here is the court’s rationale:

Flying J responds that the district court determined that the ripeness requirements … did not apply and that because New Haven did not cross-appeal the issue they are precluded from bringing it up here. This last assertion is incorrect, however, because ripeness “when it implicates the possibility of this Court issuing an advisory opinion, is a question of subject matter jurisdiction under the case-or-controversy requirement.” … New Haven's argument thus concerns this court's subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. We are obliged to consider that at any point in the litigation.

In the end, the appellate court ruled it had jurisdiction but that Flying J did not state a cause of action. Read the whole case, Flying J Inc. v. City of New Haven, 549 F. 3d 538, No. 08-2319 (12/5/08), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

August 29, 2008

Seventh Circuit Dismisses Government Appeal Of Qualified Immunity Defense

Ahmad Khorrami claimed he was wrongfully detained and mistreated by the federal government in an investigation stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attack. Khorrami sued Michael Rolince, an FBI agent on whose affidavit Khorrami allegedly was detained, and the government. The lawsuit alleged multiple causes of action, including one against Rolince — Khorrami claimed Rolince’s affidavit was false — for violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The government moved to dismiss the complaint (1) for failure to state a claim and (2) arguing that Rolince had qualified immunity for his affidavit. The trial court granted all aspects of the motion, except that it declined to rule on the government’s claim for qualified immunity. The government brought an interlocutory appeal, arguing there was qualified immunity and that the whole case should have been dismissed.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Because the immunity defense was postponed for later ruling by trial court, and not specifically ruled upon, there was not an order rejecting the immunity defense, which was a requirement for appeal. In addition, this was not a de facto denial of the immunity defense caused by a delay in ruling. The order setting aside the immunity ruling did not have a direct or irreparable impact on the merits of the case.

Get the whole case, Khorrami v. Rolince, No. 07-2755 (8/27/08), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

July 24, 2008

Illinois Constitutional Convention Debate Broadcasting Live And Available On Podcast

At the November 2008 election, Illinois voters will get a once every 20 years chance to vote on whether they want to have a state constitutional convention. The question will be debated by pundit Bruno Behrend (proponent) and lawyer Al Salvi (opponent) on July 29,2008 at 6:00 p.m. Central Time. The debate will be broadcast live on WKRS 1220-AM. If you’re in the area, and you’d rather be there for it, the debate will be held at Austin’s Saloon & Eatery, 481 Peterson Rd., Libertyville, Illinois. The debate also will stream live at www.wkrs.com, and will be podcast later. Call-ins (847-336-1220) will be welcomed.

A most interesting appellate law blogger’s opinion piece that ran in the Chicago Daily Observer for why Illinois voters should vote in favor of a constitutional convention is available right here. And for historical perspective, listen to our podcast interview of Ann Lousin, a researcher at the 1968 constitutional convention, available here.

Bookmark and Share

November 1, 2007

Special Concurrence In IRMO Duggan Argues (1) No Retroactive Application For Amended Supreme Court Rule And (2) Postdissolution Petitions Are New Actions

Recapping the previous two blog entries, a majority of the Illinois Second District Appellate Court held: (1) An amendment to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a) applied retroactively so that a premature Notice of Appeal preserved appellate jurisdiction. (See entry 10/29/07, two below.) (2) Separate postdissolution petitions in a divorce case present new claims, but not new actions, so a Rule 304(a) order must be issued to appeal a ruling on fewer than all of the issues. (See entry 10/30/07, directly below.)

The opinion was not without criticism. A special concurrence drew exactly opposite conclusions.

On the question of the retroactive application of the amendment to Rule 303(a), the Concurrence stated that Tamara had a vested right in the trial court’s judgment. That mitigated against a retroactive application of the amendment. To the contrary, the majority applied the amendment retroactively to this case, which allowed Darrell to appeal.

Without applying the amendment to this case, Darrell’s Notice of Appeal would have been premature and insufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction. The Concurrence stated: “Because the parties had a vested right in the final judgment the amendment to Rule 303 cannot operate retroactively to bestow us with jurisdiction to interfere with that right.”

The Concurrence also argued that Tamara’s petition for increased child support was a separate action, not just a separate claim within the same action, from Darrell’s request for a change in visitation. The Concurrence is immersed in lengthy case law analysis that is difficult to write about concisely in this space. Suffice it to say that the Concurrence reached an opinion 180 degrees different from the majority based on the very same case law.

To read the Concurrence, and the rest of the opinion in IRMO Duggan, No. 2-06-0061 (10/16/07), click here.

Bookmark and Share

October 29, 2007

Second District Illinois Appellate Court Rules On Retroactivity of Amended Supreme Court Rule 303

In re Marriage of Duggan offers good analysis by the Second District Illinois Appellate Court of two issues that have been confounding the appellate and family law bars. We’ll look at the case, and an interesting concurring opinion that disagrees with the majority on the appellate issues, in this and the next few entries.

The facts are not complicated. The Duggans’ marriage was dissolved in January 2002. In August 2005, Tamara petitioned for an increase in child support. Pursuant to an agreement, an order was entered stating that Darrell would pay a percentage of his net income.

Darrell then made a timely motion to vacate the order because it did not specify a particular dollar amount for the payment, as is required by the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. At the same time, Darrell also filed a petition to establish specific visitation times.

In December 2005, the trial court ruled on Darrell’s motion to vacate, refusing to vacate the percentage award. The trial court did not make a Rule 304(a) finding. (No just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order.) Unhappy with the ruling, Darrell filed a Notice of Appeal within 30 days. When the Notice of Appeal was filed, the trial court still had not ruled on Darrell’s petition to set specific visitation times. That petition was resolved by a court order in May 2006.

The parties initially did not dispute appellate jurisdiction. But the court questioned whether it had the power to consider Darrell’s appeal of the percentage award. The first question was whether Darrell’s second petition −to set visitation times − was a claim within the same cause of action, or a whole new cause of action.

If it was a claim within the same action, then the order on the motion to vacate would require a Rule 304(a) finding in order to be appealable. Because there was not a Rule 304(a) finding, the appellate court would not have jurisdiction of Darrell’s appeal. If the petition to set visitation times constituted a new action, as Darrell argued, then Rule 304(a) language would not be necessary and the appellate court would have jurisdiction.

But the analysis was complicated by an amendment to an Illinois Supreme Court Rule that took effect while the appellate court was deliberating. Rule 303(a) was amended so “when a timely postjudgment motion has been filed, a notice of appeal filed before ‘the final disposition of any separate claim does not become effective until the order disposing of the separate claim is entered.’” This was exactly the situation in the Duggans’ case. So the first question was whether “amendments to Rule 303(a) should apply to all cases pending before the appellate court on the effective date, including this one (retroactive application) or only to those appeals filed after the effective date (prospective application).”

The appellate court concluded that the amendment to Rule 303(a) should apply retroactively. The keys to this decision were: (1) the amendment was procedural, not substantive, and (2) imposition of the amendment did not impair any rights that Tamara had.

The amendment was considered “procedural” because it “relate[d] solely to the manner in which an appeal of the final judgment on one claim in a multi-claim case may be heard.” That entails “the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress.” That is generally what Supreme Court Rules do − prescribe the method for advancing pending litigation.

Nor was retroactive application of amended Rule 303(a) unfair to Tamara − i.e, it did not impair a right she possessed. The court rejected the Concurrence’s position in this regard.

The special concurrence suggests that our ability to hear this appeal under the new Rule 303 (a) impairs Tamaara’s “right” to a dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. If this is a “right” at all, however, it is not a right that Tamara ”possessed when she acted,” as she has taken to action in reliance on our initial lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, she did not even raise the issue of our jurisdiction until we required her to do so via supplemental briefing. This fact is not simply an accident of the parties” skill in recognizing jurisdictional defects; it highlights the nature of jurisdiction − it is not a right possessed by the parties, but a prerogative of the court that we assert and determine.

I appreciate the conclusion that Tamara did not have a “right” to dismissal of Darrell’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. But I do take exception to the conclusion that jurisdiction “is not a right possessed by the parties.” In fact, litigants are granted access to the courts, and thus the courts are given jurisdiction, by the Illinois Constitution. While the court gets to determine the contours of jurisdiction, it is not merely a “prerogative of the court.”

In any event, the court concluded that retroactive application of the Amended Rule 303(a) was appropriate. So Darrell won the first prong of the argument.

We’ll look at other aspects of the case in forthcoming entries. But you can get the whole opinion, IRMO Duggan, No. 2-06-0061 (10/16/07), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

October 18, 2007

No Waiver Of Appellate Argument That Depended On Evidence Not In Appellate Record

Alex T. was involuntarily admitted for mental health treatment. However, at the time the circuit court granted the State’s petition to have Alex admitted, a felony charge was pending against him. Alex argued that the order admitting him for mental health treatment was void. He based his argument on the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, which grants circuit court jurisdiction “over persons not charged with a felony.”

The Second District Illinois Appellate Court ruled, by virtue of the legislative limit, that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Alex T. In addition to its substantive position, the State also argued that (1) the appeal was moot because the term of admission had expired by the time the appellate court reviewed the case, and (2) the appellate court should not have taken judicial notice of the felony complaint against Alex because it was not submitted to the trial court and thus was not part of the record on appeal. The appellate court rejected both arguments.

As to mootness, the court stated that “… Illinois courts have generally held that review of an involuntary admission order is appropriate despite its expiration, because ‘the collateral consequences related to the stigma of an involuntary admission may confront [the] respondent in the future.’ … This policy is a recognition that the reversal or vacation of an involuntary admission order is, in the real world, often an effective form of relief.”

The appellate court also ruled that it could take judicial notice of evidence that was not in the record. The court concluded that “the caution against allowing new evidence on appeal via judicial notice is simply a part of the doctrine of waiver,” which is not a limitation on the court’s jurisdiction. The court ruled that “Relaxing the doctrine of waiver here is appropriate because the State did not object to the consideration of the charge and, indeed, incorporated the charge in its own arguments. Further, an ‘argument that an order or judgment is void is not subject to waiver.’”

This opinion also contains good discussion about the legislature’s power to limit trial court jurisdiction in light of Article VI Section 9 of the Illinois Constitution (“Circuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters except when the [Illinois] Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction.”)

You can read the whole opinion, In re Alex T., No. 2-06-0049 (8/15/07), by clicking here.

Bookmark and Share

July 31, 2007

Podcasting Lousin Interview On Illinois Constitution And Constitutional Convention – Cutback Amendment, 2008 Referendum For Con Con, Caring About State Constitutions

In this Track 6, the final installment of my interview with Illinois Constitutional scholar Prof. Lousin, Ann wraps up her discussion of the Cutback Amendment. She also talks about the prospects for another Constitutional Convention in Illinois. (The question of whether to have a Con Con will be on the 2008 election ballot in Illinois.) And finally, Prof. Lousin tells us why, in an era of overwhelming federal control, state constitutions are important.

This track is 16 minutes 28 seconds. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your desktop, laptop, or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

The first five segments of this interview are available directly below.

I am planning to broadcast more interviews of notable people who will be of interest to lawyers. The subject matter I want to cover will concern appellate practice and Illinois constitutional matters. Drop me an email and let me know if you like or dislike this format, or if you have suggestions about subjects or individuals you’d like to hear. (And don’t worry, I’ll get better at asking the questions.)


Interview with Prof. Ann Lousin re Illinois Constitution and Constittutional Convention


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 29, 2007

Track 5 Of Professor Lousin On The Illinois Constitution Now Podcasting -- The Lock Step Doctrine, The Cut Back Amendment, Initiative and Referendum

In this fifth, and next to last, track of an exclusive interview, Professor Lousin discusses the contours of the Lock Step Doctrine, particularly how the Illinois Supreme Court has applied it to the right of privacy written into the 1970 Illinois Constitution. Professor Lousin also discusses the limited right Illinois citizens have to amend the Illinois Constitution by initiative and referendum, and the Cutback Amendment, the only amendment proposed by initiative that has passed a court challenge. The Cutback Amendment dramatically changed electoral politics in Illinois.

Track 5 is just over 12 minutes. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your desktop, laptop, or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

The first four segments of this interview are available directly below.

I am flattered to tell you that Mazyar Hedayat, who writes the excellent Practice Management Blog, has placed an RSS feed of these podcasts on his blog. Now it’s simple as pie — just a couple of clicks — to listen to the podcast and read the Practice Management Blog. Look for the podcast link on the lower right of the Mazy’s blog.


Prof. Lousin interview re Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Constitutional Convention


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 26, 2007

Prof. Lousin Discusses The Illinois Constitution. Now Podcasting Track 4 Of Exclusive Interview.

We continue our first podcast interview with Professor Lousin. This track contains Professor Lousin’s thoughts on the Illinois Constitution’s clauses on the Amendatory Veto, ratification of federal constitutional amendments, and the right to bear arms. There also is discussion of how the courts have interpreted Article I of the Illinois Constitution concerning discrimination and the Illinois Equal Rights Amendment.

Track 4 is a touch over 9 minutes. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your desktop, laptop, or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

The first three segments of this interview are available directly below.

Interview with Prof. Ann Lousin re Illinois Constitutional Convention and Illinois Constitution


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 23, 2007

Podcasting Track 3 Of Lousin On The Illinois Constitution And 1968 Constitutional Convention

On Track 3, Prof. Ann Lousin answers questions about the Illinois Constitution and the 1968 Illinois Constitutional Convention. This portion of the interview focuses on: the ideology of the 1970 Constitution; education in the Constitution; and questions concerning voting by convicted felons, gubernatorial pardons, and the amendatory veto.

Track 3 is 7 minutes 18 seconds. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your desktop, laptop, or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

The first two segments of this podcast are directly below, the entries dated July 19 and 21, 2007.

Interview with Prof. Ann Lousin re Illinois Constitution and Constitutional Convention.


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 21, 2007

Lousin Remembers The Illinois Constitutional Convention

In this second of six segments of an exclusive interview, Professor Ann Lousin talks about the characters who were involved in the 1968 Illinois Constitutional Convention. Who were the delegates? Who were the movers and shakers? And what role did the independent Democrats from Chicago play?

This track is 7 minutes 55 seconds. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your desktop, laptop, or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

The first segment of this interview was posted on July 19, 2007, and is available directly below.


Interview with Prof. Ann Lousin Track 2 re Illinois Constitution and 1968 Constitutional Convention


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 19, 2007

Interview With Professor Ann Lousin Now Podcasting

Professor Ann Lousin is among the finest people I have known. Lucky for us she also is among the true experts on the Illinois Constitution. Soon after her academic studies, she was a researcher at the 1968 Illinois Constitutional Convention. In this first audio podcast on illinoisappellatelawyerblog.com, Ann talks about the '68 Convention and the surrounding politics, the Illinois Constitution and how it has been interpreted, and the prospects for another constitutional convention. (The question of whether to have a constitutional convention will be on the 2008 general election ballot in Illinois.)

This interview is broken into six segments. This Track 1 is 7 minutes 30 seconds, and focuses on the social and political climate in Illinois that gave rise to the '68 Convention.

I am planning to broadcast a new segment of this interview every other day or so for the next 10 days.

Quick housekeeping note. If you want to listen to the interview now, just click on the triangle on the left side of the bar right below. To download to your laptop or iPod for later listening, click on the MP3 link directly below the bar.

Interview with Prof. Ann Lousin Track 1 re Illinois Constiutional and Constitutional Convention


MP3 File

Bookmark and Share

July 2, 2007

Illinois Supreme Court Spanks Trial Court And Chicago Elections Board For Ruling Statute Unconstitutional

In twin cases, former aldermen Virgil Jones and Ambrosio Medrano, both convicted of federal felonies for misconduct in office, filed nomination papers to run for alderman again. Challenges were made to their nomination papers on the basis that the Illinois Municipal Code prohibited convicted felons from serving in an “elective municipal office.”

In both cases, the Chicago Election Board’s hearing examiner concluded that Jones and Medrano were ineligible to serve, and recommended that they not appear on the election ballot. Appeals were made to the Chicago Election Board. In both cases, the Board rejected the challenges because, it said, the statute prohibiting convicted felons from serving in an elective municipal office was unconstitutional. The challengers sought review in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In both cases, the circuit court affirmed the ruling of the Board.

The challengers sought direct review in the Illinois Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the cases were more appropriately handled by supervisory orders than by direct appeal.

The supreme court ruled that the Chicago Board of Elections did not have authority to consider the constitutionality of the Illinois statute. The orders by the Board rejecting the challenges to Jones and Medrano therefore were void.

The Illinois Supreme Court then ruled that the circuit court improperly affirmed the Board. The supreme court stated that the circuit court should have vacated the Board’s ruling and sent the case back the Board to rule in conformance with the statute that prohibits convicted felons from holding office. “Had the done that here, it [circuit court] would have had no need to address the merits of the Election Board’s constitutional analysis. Without a ruling of the constitutionality of the statute, there would in turn, have been no basis for seeking direct review by our court under Rule 302(a).”

For good measure, the Illinois Supreme Court found two more reasons that the circuit court’s “resolution of this case is fatally infirm.”

• First, the circuit court did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 18, which requires “that the circuit court state in writing that the finding of unconstitutionality is necessary to the decision or judgment rendered and that such decision or judgment cannot rest upon an alternate ground.” The supreme court stated that the non-constitutional flaw was not mentioned in the circuit court’s ruling.

• The Supreme Court was miffed that the Circuit Court of Cook County ignored controlling precedent from the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Using colorful language, the supreme court made it clear that the circuit court was not at liberty to ignore the Fifth District. “Although Hofer was decided by a panel of the appellate from the Fifth District, not the First District, where the Circuit Court of Cook County is located, that is of no consequence . . . The notion that the circuit courts are bound only by the appellate court decisions from their own district is a relic of the pre-1964 Illinois Constitution of 1870 and has been expressly disavowed by our court . . . Until this court says otherwise, an appellate court’s decision must therefore be followed regardless of the appellate court’s district.”

The Illinois Supreme Court chose to rule by supervisory order rather than issue an opinion through the normal course. Although supervisory orders are disfavored, it was appropriate in this case because “the manner in which this case was handled presents important issues regarding the administration of justice, and direct and immediate action is necessary to insure that the Election Board adheres to the law and that any challenge to its decision in the circuit court comports with controlling principles of judicial review.”

Both of these cases were decided by four justices. Justices Thomas, Freeman, and Burke took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. You can have the full opinions in each case by clicking on the case citation links: Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, No. 104105 (2/23/07); Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, No. 104112 (2/23/07).

Bookmark and Share

December 22, 2006

Exasperated Illinois Supreme Court Instructs Lower Courts On Constitutional Analyses.

The Illinois Supreme Court flashed frustration in an opinion that instructs appellate and circuit court judges to stop deciding cases on constitutional grounds when other issues first offer a resolution. The case involved an adjudication of wardship of a minor accused of improper sexual conduct with other minors in her care. On rehearing, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that Section 115–10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows certain out-of-court statements of non-testifying minors, was unconstitutional.

An exasperated Supreme Court stated that the constitutional analysis was unnecessary. Practitioners and judges must listen to the supreme court’s chafing.

We have repeatedly stated that cases should be decided on nonconstitutional grounds whenever possible, reaching constitutional issues only as a last resort … Yet our admonitions on this topic seem to fall not infrequently on deaf ears. The situation has become so untenable that we have recently taken the somewhat extraordinary step of adding to our rules a requirement that before deciding a case on constitutional grounds, the court must state, in writing, that its decision cannot rest upon an alternate ground. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 18(c)(4) (eff. September 1, 2006). We have also spelled out that we may “summarily vacate and remand” any circuit court judgment which fails to comply with this or any other provision of our new Rule 18. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 18(c)(4).

The appellate court’s decision presents yet another example of
reaching constitutional issues unnecessarily. The appellate court
initially filed a decision based on nonconstitutional grounds–the court
ruled the evidence at issue was inadmissible for failure to comply with
the statutory requirements, but that this error was harmless. No.
1–01–2776 (2004). On rehearing, however, the court inexplicably
deleted this analysis and, over dissent on this precise point (see 355 Ill.
App. 3d at 578-79 (Quinn, J., dissenting)), proceeded directly to a
confrontation clause analysis without addressing any possible
nonconstitutional grounds for deciding the case. 355 Ill. App. 3d at
574-75.

This alone was erroneous, as we have repeatedly attempted to
make plain. However, the appellate court went on, having already
decided the case before it, to evaluate the facial constitutionality of
section 115–10 and declare the entire statute unconstitutional. Not
only did this latter ruling violate the prohibition against deciding
constitutional issues without first exhausting all potential
nonconstitutional grounds for resolving the case, it was entirely
unnecessary to decide the case before it.

Yikes! This court was annoyed. Practitioners who want to avoid the slippery slope the appellate court slid on here should listen to the supreme court’s design for this kind of analysis. Here it is:

When a court is asked to evaluate the admission of out-of-court statements into evidence, the first step is determining whether the statement passes muster as an evidentiary matter. If the proponent seeks to admit the statement pursuant to section 115–10, the statement must be evaluated to see whether it meets that statute’s requirements; if it is sought to be admitted pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule, that claim must be evaluated. Only once the statement has first been found admissible as an evidentiary matter should constitutional objections–including Crawford-based confrontation clause claims–be dealt with … This is the only analytical “flow chart” that comports with the rule that courts must avoid considering constitutional questions where the case can be decided on nonconstitutional grounds.
The entire case, In re E.H., is available here.

Bookmark and Share