Member Groups

Government Lawyers Newsletter
The newsletter of the ISBA’s Standing Committee on Government Lawyers

April 2009, vol. 10, no. 3

Summary of recent decisions

Administrative Law

Morgan v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, No. 1-07-1058 (1st Dist. February 13, 2009). Affirmed.

Determination of Department of Professional Regulation to suspend plaintiff’s clinical psychologist license for a period of five years based on sexual misconduct with several patients, and failure to maintain proper records, even though the witnesses suffered from mental illness, gave inconsistent statements, and took medication that could cause confusion, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence; findings were sufficiently specific to afford meaningful review. Further, failure to include specific dates of alleged incidents of sexual misconduct in charges did not violate plaintiff’s due process rights, nor did delay of 222 days between end of testimony and entry of final administrative decision and after ex parte temporary suspension.


Ryan v. Board of Trustees of the General Assembly Retirement System, No. 1-07-1601 (1st Dist. February 6, 2009). Reversed.

Pension Board erred when it interpreted section 2-156 of the Pension Code to direct that former Governor, who was convicted of felonies committed during his service as Governor and Secretary of State, also forfeited pension benefits accrued during the period of time he served as member of the General Assembly and Lieutenant Governor. Section 2-105 of the Code limits the definition of member to the period of service in each office.

School Law

G.I.S. Venture v. Novak, No. 2-07-0934 (2d Dist. February 6, 2009). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.

Trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of school district dismissing taxpayer complaint challenging levy for educational fund at the maximum rate, after it had permanently transferred funds from working cash fund, established with proceeds from issuance of bonds, to operations and management fund. Section 20-5 of School Code does not allow for the general permanent transfer of funds from working cash fund to any other fund except educational fund, whether through abatement or otherwise. However, because there remains material issue of fact with regards to whether transfer of disputed funds to educational fund would result in excess accumulation, it was not error to deny full summary judgment to taxpayers.

Sovereign Immunity

People v. Excavation and Lowboy Services, Inc., No. 1-07-3345 (1st Dist. February 13, 2009). Affirmed.

After Environmental Protection Agency sued individuals and city for operating illegal dump and public nuisance, trial court did not err when it granted motion to dismiss city’s third party complaint against Illinois Department of Transportation and its Director based on a lack of jurisdiction. Because provisions of Environmental Protection Act do nothing to override either the State Lawsuit Immunity Act or Court of Claims Act, circuit court lacks jurisdiction over third party complaint.

Special Prosecutors

In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, No. 3-07-0553 (3d Dist. January 29, 2009). Reversed and remanded.

Former Assistant State’s Attorneys, who successfully petition to have court appoint the Attorney General’s office as special prosecutor to investigate the State’s Attorney, but whose case was dismissed after the Attorney General found no basis for further investigation, lacked standing to participate in the consolidated case filed by State’ Attorney, petitioning for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate current and former employees of State’s Attorney’s and Sheriff’s offices. Further, appointment of special prosecutor, and injunction against State’s Attorney is overly broad, in that it allows a special prosecutor to investigate all current and former officers and employees and has no provision for termination. However, to remand case with directions that trial court enter order approving proposed agreement between States Attorney Appellate Prosecutor’s office, State’s Attorney, and Special Prosecutor, would be an exercise of supervisory powers, which Appellate Court lacks.


*These summaries were prepared by Adrienne W. Albrecht for the ISBA Illinois E-Mail Case Digests, which are free e-mail digests of Illinois Supreme and Appellate Court cases and which are available to ISBA members soon after the decision is released, with a link to the full text of the slip opinion on the Illinois Reporter of Decision’s Web site. These summaries have been downloaded and reorganized according to topic by Ed Schoenbaum for Government Lawyers, with permission.

Login to read and post comments