# Alexander v. Director, Department of Agriculture > Appellate Court of Illinois · January 4, 1983 · 111 Ill. App. 3d 927 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524480 ## Case - **Full name:** ROBERT D. ALEXANDER, Indiv. and D/B/A Peoria Scale Service, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees - **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois - **Decided:** January 4, 1983 - **Citations:** 111 Ill. App. 3d 927; 67 Ill. Dec. 575; 444 N.E.2d 811; 1983 Ill. App. LEXIS 1384 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Heiple - **Judges:** Stouder, Heiple - **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524480 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding means adequately identified where administrative agency was directed to promulgate "rules and regulations" ## Opinion text JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: Plaintiff, Robert D. Alexander, registered as a scale repairman pursuant to section 8.1 of the Weights and Measures Act, suffered a revocation of that registration. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 147, par. 108.1.) He brought suit for administrative review in circuit court but was again rebuffed. He now appeals that affirmation of the revocation of his registration. I would reverse. Section 8.1 of the Act authorizes the Director of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to enforce its provisions and further provides that the Director may revoke a registration “for cause.” No rules or regulations were ever promulgated. “For cause” was never defined. Notwithstanding this lack, a hearing was held before the Department of Agriculture to provide Alexander with the opportunity to show cause why the Department should not revoke, or decline to renew, his registration. As noted, Alexander was unsuccessful and his registration was revoked. At the outset, it must be conceded that the Department proved Alexander to be an unreliable scale repairman. As is correctly noted in the majority opinion, scales that he worked on were improperly installed and did not work properly. He collected fees in advance and failed to perform at all. He neglected to make a promised refund. Complaints against him were unrebutted. Alexander offered no evidence in defense. I would further concede that the public would be better served if Alexander were not registered as a scale repairman. Where I part with the majority is on their conclusion that there was any legal basis to revoke his registration. There was none. The Department had never promulgated any rules or regulations as authorized by statute. Although the statute contemplates that registrations may be revoked “for cause,” those words do not stand alone as authority for revocation. The statute must be read as a whole. Yes, a registration may be revoked for cause but only after suitable rules and regulations have been promulgated. Reading the statute as a whole, that is what it says. If the Director of the Department of Agriculture were to follow the statute and promulgate proper rules and regulations pertaining to the registration and revocation of registration for scale repairmen, he would then have a legal basis to seek a revocation in a proper case. The faults, defaults and deficiencies in Alexander’s case are such as could easily be categorized in such rules and regulations. Since, however, the Director of Agriculture failed to promulgate rules as authorized by statute, he has no basis on which to proceed with revocation proceedings against Alexander. The proceedings in this case, not being based on law, not only violated Alexander’s rights under the statute in question but violated as well his right to procedural due process under our State and Federal constitutions. Accordingly, I dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524480. Public record. Not legal advice.