holding that $500,000 limit on noneco-nomic damages violated constitutional prohibition against special legislation, because, inter alia, “the statute discriminates between slightly and severely injured plaintiffs, and also between tortfeasors who cause severe and moderate or minor injuries”
How later courts described this case
- holding that $500,000 limit on noneco-nomic damages violated constitutional prohibition against special legislation, because, inter alia, “the statute discriminates between slightly and severely injured plaintiffs, and also between tortfeasors who cause severe and moderate or minor injuries”
- declaring the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 unconstitutional in toto; noting that the right to be free from unreasonable governmental -37- intrusions upon privacy of article I, section 6, is supplemented by the constitutional right to a certain remedy for invasions of privacy in article I, section 12, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970
- explaining that a cap on non-economic damages “undercuts the power, and obligation, of the judiciary to reduce excessive verdicts,” and thus “functions as a ‘legislative remittitur’”
- stating that the separation of powers analysis “is entirely unnecessary, given the majority’s prior holding that the same measure is invalid special legislation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE BILANDIC, specially concurring:
I concur in the majority’s judgment invalidating Public Act 89 — 7 in its entirety. I write separately to state that I do not join in the majority’s discussion of the constitutionality of the damages cap under the separation of powers doctrine as that discussion is wholly unnecessary and constitutes dicta.