Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Taxpayers challenged three substantive bills and one appropriation bill, part of capital projects, signed by the governor in July 2009. The appellate court held that Public Act 96–34 violated the single-subject clause of the Illinois Constitution, and that the other acts were invalid because they were contingent on enactment of Public Act 96–34. The supreme court reversed, reinstating the trial court's dismissal. All of the substantive provisions in Act 96–34 are connected to capital projects; they establish revenue sources to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund or are related to the overall subject of the Act in that they help implement other provisions. The court upheld the other acts against single-subject challenges, including challenges based on the contingency clauses. Nothing in the state constitution prohibits making legislation contingent on a separate legislative enactment. The enactments did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, public funds clause, uniformity clause, or run afoul of constitutional veto procedures. An enactment that authorizes expenditure of public funds for a public purpose is not unconstitutional for incidental benefit to private interests. There is nothing constitutionally impermissible about the inclusion of the "as approximated below" language. View "Wirtz v. Quinn" on Justia Law

Tax valuation objection cases, filed between 2000 and 2005, settled with a 2006 agreed order under which the Cook County treasurer was to refund overpaid taxes with interest. The Property Tax Code interest rate was 5% until December 31, 2005; legislation (35 ILCS 200/23-20) effective January 1, 2006, provides for interest of the lesser of 5% or the Consumer Price Index. The supreme court held: The circuit court retained jurisdiction to award judgment interest after an appeal was filed. Because the treasurer had not appealed the issue of interest on two refunds, the court upheld judgment requiring that interest be paid at 5% from the date the taxes were paid through December 31, 2005 and based on the lower CPI rate from January 1, 2006, forward. The court properly applied the amendment. An objector did not forfeit judgment interest by failing to raise the issue before the trial court. The Property Tax Code controls interest that must be paid until there is a full refund of taxes paid in protest; if interest on the tax refund is not paid in full, judgment interest under the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed on the amount of outstanding interest.

The regional board of school trustees dissolved a school district, partially located in Montgomery County, and annexed it to a district previously located entirely in Sangamon County. About 99.7 percent of the reconstituted district is in Sangamon County and the voters of that county had approved a referendum under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL)(35 ILCS 200/18â185); the voters in Montgomery County had not. A taxing district subject to PTELL may not ordinarily extend taxes at a rate that exceeds the previous yearâs extension by more than 5%, or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less, without referendum approval. The district, wanting to issue bonds to finance improvements, sought a declaration that PTELL did not apply. Reversing the trial and appellate courts, the supreme court held that the entire district remains subject to the PTELL.