Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Elections (1994)

No question is raised on the sufficiency of the case law permitting intervention by an entity in support of its own ballot initiative proposal (see Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 506 (1994) (per curiam) (hereinafter CBA II); Chicago Bar Ass’n v. State Board of Elections, 137 Ill. 2d 394, 396 (1990) (hereinafter CBA I); Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 453, 456 (1976) (per curiam) (hereinafter Co…

No question is raised on the sufficiency of the case law permitting intervention by an entity in support of its own ballot initiative proposal (see Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 506 (1994) (per curiam) (hereinafter CBA II); Chicago Bar Ass’n v. State Board of Elections, 137 Ill. 2d 394, 396 (1990) (hereinafter CBA I); Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 453, 456 (1976) (per curiam) (hereinafter Co…

No question is raised on the sufficiency of the case law permitting intervention by an entity in support of its own ballot initiative proposal (see Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 506 (1994) (per curiam) (hereinafter CBA II); Chicago Bar Ass’n v. State Board of Elections, 137 Ill. 2d 394, 396 (1990) (hereinafter CBA I); Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 453, 456 (1976) (per curiam) (hereinafter Co…

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

However, a court will detour from the straight path of stare decisis only for articulable reasons, and only when the court must bring its decisions into agreement with experience and newly ascertained facts.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 , 641 N.E.2d 525, 529 (1994).

Rather than being an “inexorable command,” the doctrine serves to ensure that the law “will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Stare decisis is a valid and useful rule of thumb, but as we have long acknowledged, it is not an “inexorable command.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity…

Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are established in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994); see also Wakulich v. Mraz , 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (“The doctrine ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integr…

“The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

“The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Notably, in Chicago Bar Ass’n, 161 Ill. 2d at 506 , the supreme court stated it agreed with findings by the dissent in that case “that issues of standing and ripeness [did] not preclude a review of the merits.” In addressing those issues, the dissent favorably cited the rule in Fletcher but noted the “exception” recognized in Coalition for Political Honesty: “While it is true, as a general rule, that a court may not enjoin an election [citation], - 11 - we have recognized an…

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). “ ‘[A] question once deliberately examined and decided should be considered as settled and closed to further argument ***.’ ” Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (2003) (quoting Prall v. Burckhartt, 299 Ill. 19, 41 (1921)).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). “ ‘It is the absolute duty of the circuit court to follow the decisions of the appellate court.’ ” In re R.C., 195 Ill. 2d 291, 297 (2001) (quoting In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32 , 36 (1988)).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). “ ‘It is the absolute duty of the circuit court to follow the decisions of the appellate court.’ ” In re R.C., 195 Ill. 2d 291, 297 (2001) (quoting In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32 , 36 (1988)).

The central question for us to decide here is whether we should do so. ¶ 95 The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command (Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), and this court will depart from it and discard a prior case when there is good cause to do so (Moehle v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 93 Ill. 2d 299, 304 (1982)).

The central question for us to decide here is whether we should do so. ¶ 95 The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command (Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), and this court will depart from it and discard a prior case when there is good cause to do so (Moehle v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 93 Ill. 2d 299, 304 (1982)).

The central question for us to decide here is whether we should do so. ¶ 95 The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command (Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), and this court will depart from it and discard a prior case when there is good cause to do so (Moehle v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 93 Ill. 2d 299, 304 (1982)).

The central question for us to decide here is whether we should do so. ¶ 96 The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command (Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), and this court will depart from it and discard a prior case when there is good cause to do so (Moehle v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 93 Ill. 2d 299, 304 (1982)).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). ¶ 27 This case involves the statutory construction of section 111-3 of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/111-3 (West 2012).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). ¶ 27 This case involves the statutory construction of section 111-3 of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/111-3 (West 2012).

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). ¶ 27 This case involves the statutory construction of section 111-3 of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/111-3 (West 2012).

Lakisha M., 227 Ill. 2d at 263 . ¶ 55 With respect to controlling precedent, this court observed in Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78, 94-95 (2007) (quoting Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)): “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

Lakisha M., 227 Ill. 2d at 263 . ¶ 55 With respect to controlling precedent, this court observed in Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78, 94-95 (2007) (quoting Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)): “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

The purpose of stare decisis is to “ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Although stare decisis is not an inexorable command, any departure from stare decisis “ ‘demands special justification.’ ” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994) (quoting Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984)).

ANALYSIS “[A] writ of mandamus commands a public officer to perform an official, nondiscretionary duty that the petitioner is entitled to have performed and that the officer has failed to perform.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 507 (1994).

Instead, the decision does a disservice to all of the lower courts, courts of review and litigants that relied on the Cargill decision over the course of the last few years.” “The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Instead, the decision does a disservice to all of the lower courts, courts of review and litigants that relied on the Cargill decision over the course of the last few years.” “The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

We held in Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994): “The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

We held in Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994): “The doctrine of stare decisis is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.

Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill.2d 502, 510 , 204 Ill.Dec. 301 , 641 N.E.2d 525, 529 (1994).

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

This doctrine ‘is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.’ Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

This doctrine ‘is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.’ Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

The doctrine of stare decisis “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

Although stare decisis "is not an inexorable command," courts should "detour from the straight path of stare decisis only for articulable reasons, and only when the court must bring its decisions into agreement with experience and newly ascertained facts." Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 , 641 N.E.2d 525, 529 (1994).

Although stare decisis “is not an inexorable command,” courts should “detour from the straight path of stare decisis only for articulable reasons, and only when the court must bring its decisions into agreement with experience and newly ascertained facts.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 , 641 N.E.2d 525, 529 (1994).

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

It is well settled that prior precedent should be overturned “only on the showing of good cause,” only where there is “ ‘special justification’ ” for the departure, or only where the reasons for departure are “compelling.” People v. Tisdel, 201 Ill. 2d 210, 228-29 (2002) (quoting Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co., 6 Ill. 2d 152, 167 (1955), Chicago Bar Ass’n, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994) (quoting Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 , 81 L.

It is well settled that prior precedent should be overturned “only on the showing of good cause,” only where there is “ ‘special justification’ ” for the departure, or only where the reasons for departure are “compelling.” People v. Tisdel , 201 Ill. 2d 210, 228-29 (2002) (quoting Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. , 6 Ill. 2d 152, 167 (1955), Chicago Bar Ass’n , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994) (quoting Arizona v. Rumsey , 467 U.S. 203, 212 , 81 L.

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not constitute an “inexorable command” ( Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), we will depart from the doctrine only upon a showing of “good cause” ( Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. , 6 Ill. 2d 152, 166-67 (1955); see also People v. Robinson , 187 Ill. 2d 461, 463-64 (1999) (“compelling reasons may require a departure from prior precedent” (emphasis in original))).

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not constitute an “inexorable command” (Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994)), we will depart from the doctrine only upon a showing of “good cause” (Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co., 6 Ill. 2d 152, 166-67 (1955); see also People v. Robinson, 187 Ill. 2d 461, 463-64 (1999) (“compelling reasons may require a departure from prior precedent” (emphasis in original))).

The doctrine of stare decisis “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion *** [apart from] the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994).

The doctrine of stare decisis “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion *** [apart from] the proclivities of individuals.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994) .