# Best v. Taylor MacHine Works

> Illinois Supreme Court · December 18, 1997 · 179 Ill. 2d 367

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862452

## Case

- **Full name:** VERNON BEST, Appellee, v. TAYLOR MACHINE WORKS Et Al., Appellants; JONATHAN ISBELL, Adm’r of the Estate of Steven A. Kelso, Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 18, 1997
- **Citations:** 179 Ill. 2d 367; 228 Ill. Dec. 636; 689 N.E.2d 1057
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bilandic
- **Judges:** McMorrow, Heiple, Bilandic, Miller
- **Cited by:** 508 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- holding that $500,000 limit on noneconomic 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 m…
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862452. Public record. Not legal advice.