# People Ex Rel. Director of Finance v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n

> Illinois Supreme Court · January 26, 1979 · 74 Ill. 2d 561

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738778

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE Ex Rel. THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, Appellee, v. YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SPRINGFIELD Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 26, 1979
- **Citations:** 74 Ill. 2d 561; 25 Ill. Dec. 649; 387 N.E.2d 305; 1979 Ill. LEXIS 251
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moran
- **Judges:** Kluczynski, Moran
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738778

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE MORAN, dissenting:
The trial court, under Rule 308 (58 Ill. 2d R. 308), certified to the appellate court the question of the proper measure of damages in a case before it. Each member of the appellate panel rendered different answers to the question certified, thereby leaving the trial court in a quandary, its problem unresolved.
Article VI, section 5, of the Constitution establishes and sets forth the organization of the Appellate Court of Illinois. Section 5, in part, provides:
“Each Appellate division shall have at least three Judges. *** A majority of a division constitutes a quorum and the concurrence of a majority of the division is necessary for a decision. ” (Emphasis added.)
Section 4(c) provides, in part, for appeals from the appellate court to this court as a matter of right, “if a division of the Appellate Court certifies that a case decided by it involves a question of such importance that the case should be decided by the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis added.)
Admitting that the above provisions were not followed, the majority opines “that this formal defect is [not] fatal to our jurisdiction over the matter. ” (74 Ill. 2d at 567.) The majority, then, by legal gymnastics, treated the answering brief of the appellee, the State, as a motion for a direct appeal under Rule 302(b) (58 Ill. 2d R. 302(b)). By doing so, the court, despite its admonition, has set an untoward precedent.
It is my feeling that this case should be remanded to the appellate court with the instruction that, before issuing a certificate of importance, that court, in accordance with the constitutional requirement, decide the question presented and that, in the event a majority of the panel is unable to agree, the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. Either result would allow the aggrieved party to petition this court for leave to appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738778. Public record. Not legal advice.