Brooks v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

537 N.E.2d 444, 181 Ill. App. 3d 714, 130 Ill. Dec. 377, 1989 Ill. App. LEXIS 527
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedApril 20, 1989
Docket5-87-0044
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 537 N.E.2d 444 (Brooks v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooks v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 537 N.E.2d 444, 181 Ill. App. 3d 714, 130 Ill. Dec. 377, 1989 Ill. App. LEXIS 527 (Ill. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

JUSTICE RARICK

delivered the opinion of the court:

On November 13, 1981, Bruce Morrison, then chief of the East St. Louis police department, filed written charges with the city’s board of fire and police commissioners (hereinafter the Board) alleging that on two successive days patrol officer Sharon Brooks was guilty of “neglect of duty and being absent without permission from duty.” Specifically, the charges alleged that Officer Brooks was scheduled to work on October 24 and 25, 1981, and failed to report for work or inform the police department that she would not be reporting for work.

A hearing was held on December 15, 1981. Officer Brooks was found guilty and subsequently discharged. Brooks thereupon filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court of St. Clair County. The court held that the Board’s finding that Officer Brooks failed to inform the police department that she would not be reporting for work on October 24, 1981, was against the manifest weight of the evidence but that such finding with respect to October 25, 1981, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court also found that the Board did not have cause for discharge and remanded the cause to the Board to determine a different sanction; It is from this decision that the Board appeals.

We cannot address the merits of the Board’s appeal, however, because we find that this court does not properly have jurisdiction. To be appealable, an order must be final and must terminate the litigation between the parties. In the present case, were we to affirm the trial court, a new sanction would have to be imposed which could again be appealed to the trial court. In Kvidera v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, the court held that “[a]n order remanding the cause to the [administrative] agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed is not final and appealable because it does not terminate the litigation between the parties.” (Kvidera v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1988), 168 Ill. App. 3d 380, 381, 522 N.E.2d 757, citing Mitrenga v. Martin (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 1006, 443 N.E.2d 268.) The facts of this case are almost identical. Where the circuit court has the power to remand an agency decision, jurisdiction remains with the circuit court until final disposition of these matters and only then does this court have jurisdiction.

The appeal of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of East St. Louis is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

CHAPMAN and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hooker v. Retirement Board of Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
907 N.E.2d 447 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2009)
Cunningham v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
389 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2009)
Cunningham v. RETIREMENT BD. FIREMEN'S ANN.
907 N.E.2d 463 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2009)
Daley v. License Appeal Comm'n
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1999
Daley v. License Appeal Commission
724 N.E.2d 214 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
537 N.E.2d 444, 181 Ill. App. 3d 714, 130 Ill. Dec. 377, 1989 Ill. App. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-board-of-fire-police-commissioners-illappct-1989.