holding that a provision in the Home Repair Fraud Act was unconstitutional because it created a mandatory presumption that, if certain facts existed, then a contractor made promises with the intent not to perform the work or with knowledge that the work would not be performed
How later courts described this case
- holding that a provision in the Home Repair Fraud Act was unconstitutional because it created a mandatory presumption that, if certain facts existed, then a contractor made promises with the intent not to perform the work or with knowledge that the work would not be performed
- holding that a statutory provision was severable where it was added six years after the statute was enacted
- rebuttable presumption that shifts burden of production onto defendant on element of offense violates due process
- and federal cases discussed therein
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE MILLER, specially concurring:
I join in the judgment of the court and the analysis of the federal constitutional issue. Because the case is decided on federal constitutional grounds, there is no need for us to consider here whether the Illinois Constitution independently requires the same result. Accordingly, I do not join the brief discussion in the majority opinion regarding a state constitutional basis for our decision in this case. 181 Ill. 2d at 147.