noting the changes in statutory language
How later courts described this case
- noting the changes in statutory language
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE CAHILL concurring:
The majority analysis of the supreme court cases that have dealt with this issue is faultless. I write separately only to point out that the issue of the retroactive application of section 6 — 2(e) (720 ILCS 5/6— 2(e) (West Supp. 1995)) had not been addressed, other than in footnotes, until the second supreme court opinion in Kinkead, 182 Ill. 2d at 333, 335.1 agree with the footnote in our opinion that the special concurrence in the second Kinkead opinion “implicitly agreed with the plurality that the amended version of the statute should not be given retroactive effect.” 297 Ill. App. 3d at 516-17 n.6. Yet the second Kinkead opinion does not squarely address the discussion of rules of procedure, including rebuttable presumptions, that appear in First National Bank v. King, 165 Ill. 2d 533, 542-43 (1995), or the supreme court cases cited therein.