Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Oak Brook Park District

Appellate Court of Illinois

Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Oak Brook Park District

268 N.E.2d 570, 132 Ill. App. 2d 178, 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1446

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 26, 1971

DocketNo. 70-137

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 N.E.2d 570 (Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Oak Brook Park District) 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

Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Oak Brook Park District, 268 N.E.2d 570, 132 Ill. App. 2d 178, 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1446 (Ill. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.) seeking to review the adoption of the Park District’s annual budget and appropriation ordinance. The appeal is taken from the judgment order of the trial court which sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Since the Park District Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 105) contains no language adopting the provisions of the Administrative Review Act, judicial review under that act is not available to plaintiff. White v. Board of Appeals (1970), 45 Ill.2d 378, 381; Ross v. Chicago Land Clearance Com. (1952), 413 Ill. 377, 381.

Plaintiff has also sought to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of the Administrative Review Act Hmiting such review to the final decisions of such administrative agencies which, by express reference, adopt the provisions of the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, supra, par. 265). This point was not raised or passed upon by the trial court and is therefore not presented to us for review.¹ Koplin v. Saul Lerner Co. (1963), 29 Ill.2d 451,454; Shilvock v. Retirement Board (1940), 375 Ill. 68, 72.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

T. MORAN, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

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

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.) seeking to review the adoption of the Park District’s annual budget and appropriation ordinance. The appeal is taken from the judgment order of the trial court which sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Since the Park District Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 105) contains no language adopting the provisions of the Administrative Review Act, judicial review under that act is not available to plaintiff. White v. Board of Appeals (1970), 45 Ill.2d 378, 381; Ross v. Chicago Land Clearance Com. (1952), 413 Ill. 377, 381.

Plaintiff has also sought to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of the Administrative Review Act Hmiting such review to the final decisions of such administrative agencies which, by express reference, adopt the provisions of the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, supra, par. 265). This point was not raised or passed upon by the trial court and is therefore not presented to us for review.¹ Koplin v. Saul Lerner Co. (1963), 29 Ill.2d 451,454; Shilvock v. Retirement Board (1940), 375 Ill. 68, 72.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

T. MORAN, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 N.E.2d 570, 132 Ill. App. 2d 178, 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-board-of-commissioners-of-oak-brook-park-district-illappct-1971.

Opinion

T. MORAN, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack