Fenton’s analysis is contrary to the rule that interest statutes are to be strictly construed; nothing will be read into them by intendment or implication
How later courts described this case
- Fenton’s analysis is contrary to the rule that interest statutes are to be strictly construed; nothing will be read into them by intendment or implication
- “[IJnterest statutes are to be strictly construed; nothing will be read into them by intendment or implication.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Coleman v. RETIREMENT BD. FIREMEN'S ANN., 392 Ill. App. 3d 380 (2009)
We believe that the holdings in Fenton and its progeny are well reasoned and, as a consequence, we decline to follow Bassett.
Declined to follow by Kouzoukas v. RETIREMENT BD. POLICEMEN'S An., 890 N.E.2d 1135 (2008)
We believe that the holding in Fenton and our earlier decision relying upon its holding are well reasoned, and, as a consequence, we decline to follow Bassett.
The opinion
JUSTICE LYTTON, specially concurring:
Although I concur with the majority opinion, I find the entire discussion of the Interest Act superfluous. It is unnecessary to the opinion because we have determined that the plaintiff was owed no interest on the increased amount of contributions refunded to him. Thus, I do not join in the dicta that needlessly challenges an entire line of Illinois cases.