holding that it was not unreasonable for plaintiffs, when faced with conflicting appellate authority, to rely upon the authority from their home appellate district
How later courts described this case
- holding that it was not unreasonable for plaintiffs, when faced with conflicting appellate authority, to rely upon the authority from their home appellate district
- noting that the supreme court had previously implicitly recognized this authority when it cited an appellate court’s prospective application of Illinois Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court case law
- the majority holds that a circuit court is bound by the decisions of the appellate court of the district in which its sits and the special concurrence observes that since there is only one appellate court, a decision by any appellate court is binding on all circuit courts in the state
- “Therefore, the nonretroactive application was expressly limited to the facts of the case and could not have ‘retarded’ the future operation of Mueller”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE HARRISON, specially concurring:
Illinois has but one appellate court. People v. Granados, 172 Ill. 2d 358, 371 (1996). Although the state is divided into five judicial districts, those districts have nothing whatever to do with the court’s authority. Their sole purpose is to define the political units from which judges of the supreme and appellate courts are selected. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 2.
Because there is only one appellate court, a decision by any division of that court is binding precedent on all circuit courts throughout the state, regardless of locale. People v. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d 113, 128 (1988). That being so, I fail to see how the majority can hold "that when conflicts arise amongst the districts, the circuit court is bound by the decisions of the appellate court of the district in which it sits.” 176 Ill. 2d at 92. Such a rule makes sense in the federal judiciary, where there are various courts of appeal which are autonomous, but it is wholly inconsistent with the principle that the appellate court in Illinois is a single body whose decisions are binding on every circuit court in the state.
Given the unitary nature of the Illinois appellate court and the reach of its decisions, what circuit courts should be doing is following the most recent appellate court decision on point. That is so even if the decision conflicts with a prior decision of an appellate court division located within the circuit court’s particular district. The geography is simply irrelevant.
Subject to this qualification, I agree with the majority’s analysis and with the result it reaches.
CHIEF JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this special concurrence.