Valstad Ex Rel. Valstad Quarry, Inc. v. Cipriano (2005)

App. 3d 905, 917-18 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 868 (2005).

Calvey v. Daxon, supra, 997 P.2d at 171 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted); see Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.App.3d 905, 917 , 293 Ill.Dec. 544 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 868 (2005)("[T]he transfer of money accumulated in special funds into a general revenue fund is generally within the legislature's province and authority.").

App. 3d 905, 917 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 868 (2005).

App. 3d 905, 917 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 868 (2005).

“To survive scrutiny under the uniformity clause, a nonproperty tax or fee classification must: (1) be based on a real and substantial difference between the people taxed and those not taxed; and (2) bear some reasonable relationship to the object of the legislation or to public policy.” (Emphases added.) Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

"To survive scrutiny under the uniformity clause, a nonproperty tax or fee classification must: (1) be based on a real and substantial difference between the people taxed and those not taxed; and (2) bear some reasonable relationship to the object of the legislation or to public policy." (Emphases added.) Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

App. 3d 905, 917-18 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 868 (2005).

App. 3d 905, 922-24 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 872-73 (2005) (holding, inter alia, that the federal Clean Water Act did not preempt Illinois laws allowing the State to collect fees because Congress did not expressly prohibit it, the Act did not fully occupy the entire field of law regarding the regulation of pollution leaving no room for State action, and Illinois law did not conflict with the Clean Water Act rendering it impossible to comply with both).

At least one case has stated that a tax that is constitutional under the uniformity clause is also constitutional under the due process clause (Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

At least one case has stated that a tax that is constitutional under the uniformity clause is also constitutional under the due process clause (Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

At least one case has stated that a tax that is constitutional under the uniformity clause is also constitutional under the due process clause (Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

The District cites Bath Petroleum Storage, Inc. v. Sovas, 309 F. Supp. 2d 357, 366, 371-72 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (finding no federal conflict preemption), and Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

App. 3d 905, 922-24 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 872-73 (2005) (holding, inter alia, that the federal Clean Water Act did not preempt Illinois laws allowing the State to collect fees because Congress did not expressly prohibit it, the Act did not fully occupy the entire field of law regarding the regulation of pollution leaving no room for State action, and Illinois law did not conflict with the Clean Water Act rendering it impossible to comply with both).

App. 3d 905, 913 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 865 (2005)), we ask whether those facts state a cause of action, that is, whether they entitle plaintiffs to relief under the law (see Morris, 359 Ill.

App. 3d 905, 913 , 828 N.E.2d 854, 865 (2005)), we ask whether those facts state a cause of action, that is, whether they entitle plaintiffs to relief under the law (see Morris, 359 Ill.

Cipriano, 357 Ill.

Implied field preemption, however, does not apply here, as courts have held that the "Clean Water Act does not occupy the entire field of water pollution control and abatement." Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.

See Department of Public Welfare v. Haas, 15 Ill.2d 204, 215 , *882 154 N.E.2d 265 (1958) ("The fact that the legislature may provide that amounts, when collected, shall be placed in a certain fund does not ordinarily preclude a later General Assembly from ordering it paid into another fund or from abolishing the fund altogether."); see also Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.App.3d 905, 917-18 , 293 Ill.

See Department of Public Welfare v. Haas, 15 Ill. 2d 204, 215 (1958) (“The fact that the legislature may provide that amounts, when collected, shall be placed in a certain fund does not ordinarily preclude a later General Assembly from ordering it paid into another fund or from abolishing the fund altogether.”); see also Valstad v. Cipriano, 357 Ill.