Vill v. Industrial Commission

Illinois Supreme Court

Vill v. Industrial Commission

842 N.E.2d 674, 218 Ill. 2d 124, 299 Ill. Dec. 637, 2005 Ill. LEXIS 1630

Illinois Supreme Court·Decided December 1, 2005·No. 99121 Rel·Published·Cited by 38 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case, one Justice of this Court

has recused himself and the remaining members of the Court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value. See People v. Griffith, 212 Ill. 2d 57, 58 (2004), citing Perlman v. First National Bank, 60 Ill. 2d 529, 530 (1975).

Thomas, C.J., took no part.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this case, one Justice of this Court

has recused himself and the remaining members of the Court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value. See People v. Griffith, 212 Ill. 2d 57, 58 (2004), citing Perlman v. First National Bank, 60 Ill. 2d 529, 530 (1975).

Thomas, C.J., took no part.

Vill v. Industrial Commission, 842 N.E.2d 674, 218 Ill. 2d 124, 299 Ill. Dec. 637, 2005 Ill. LEXIS 1630 (Ill. 2005).

Pincite

842 N.E.2d 674 (Vill v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related