Clark v. State Police Merit Board of State

Forest R. Clark, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Police Merit Board of the State of Illinois Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Clark v. State Police Merit Bd. of State, 282 N.E.2d 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 27, 1972
Docket: No. 11479
Judges: Craven
Citations: 282 N.E.2d 2205 Ill. App. 3d 3321972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2715

Opinion — Craven

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court of Champaign County upholding plaintiff’s 10 days’ suspension imposed by the State Police Merit Board. Plaintiff, a state trooper, was suspended by the superintendent for violation of certain rules of the division (Rule 63.160, Insubordination; Rule 63.200, Unofficial Communications; Rule 63.210, Failure to File a Written Report; and Rule 63.230, Official Communication Through Proper Channels). The State Police Merit Board, after hearing, found plaintiff guilty of violation of such rules and suspended him for 10 days. The circuit court, upon review under the Administrative Review Act, reversed certain findings and sustained others. It affirmed the 10 day suspension.

While neither party has raised the question, it is the duty of an appellate court first to determine that an appeal properly lies to it before going into the merits and evidence of the case. The actions here taken were pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 121, sec. 307.13. The action of the Superintendent of State Police, and the State Police Merit Board in connection with disciplinary rules and regulations of state police are set forth in that statute. No provision is made by this section of statute for application of the Administrative Review Act to actions under said section, although Section 14 (Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 121, sec. 307.14) provides for application of the Administrative Review Act to orders of the board “rendered pursuant to the provisions of this section”.

Thus, the Administrative Review Act is expressly applicable to Section 14. It is not applicable either expressly or by any rule of statutory construction to Section 13. Thus, the circuit court was without jurisdiction on review and we have no jurisdiction of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

SMITH and SIMKINS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts10

Relies on it most ⓘ

People v. Cox396 N.E.2d 59 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
Village of Park Forest v. Angel347 N.E.2d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)
Board of Regents of the Regency Universities System v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board520 N.E.2d 1150 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)
Cohen v. Sterling Nursing Home, Inc.372 N.E.2d 934 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)
People v. Williams368 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
Hazel v. Hayes302 N.E.2d 458 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)

Most recent

Board of Education of School District No. 122 v. Illinois State Board of Education568 N.E.2d 289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
Kutz v. Merit Commission522 N.E.2d 794 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)
Board of Regents of the Regency Universities System v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board520 N.E.2d 1150 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)
People v. Cox396 N.E.2d 59 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
Memorial Consultants, Inc. v. Bakalis391 N.E.2d 212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
Cohen v. Sterling Nursing Home, Inc.372 N.E.2d 934 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list