bar of sovereign immunity in Illinois

2019In appropriate circumstances, plaintiffs may obtain relief in circuit court even where the defendant they have identified in their pleadings is a state board, agency or department.” Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 44 . ¶ 24 The supreme court has recognized an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity when a plaintiff’s complaint alleges that a State official’s conduct violates statutory or constitutional law or is in excess of his or her authority because such conduct is not considered conduct of the State; instead, such conduct taken by a State official without legal authority strips the off

2018Leetaru , 2015 IL 117485 , ¶¶ 44-45, 392 Ill.Dec. 275 , 32 N.E.3d 583 ; People v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d 87 , 97, 259 Ill.Dec. 845 , 759 N.E.2d 906 (2001) ; Smith , 113 Ill. 2d at 131 , 100 Ill.Dec. 560 , 497 N.E.2d 738 ; Sass , 72 Ill. 2d at 490 -91 , 21 Ill.Dec. 528 , 381 N.E.2d 975 .

2018Leetaru , 2015 IL 117485 , ¶¶ 44-45, 392 Ill.Dec. 275 , 32 N.E.3d 583 ; People v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d 87 , 97, 259 Ill.Dec. 845 , 759 N.E.2d 906 (2001) ; Smith , 113 Ill. 2d at 131 , 100 Ill.Dec. 560 , 497 N.E.2d 738 ; Sass , 72 Ill. 2d at 490 -91 , 21 Ill.Dec. 528 , 381 N.E.2d 975 .

2018Leetaru , 2015 IL 117485 , ¶¶ 44-45, 392 Ill.Dec. 275 , 32 N.E.3d 583 ; People v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d 87 , 97, 259 Ill.Dec. 845 , 759 N.E.2d 906 (2001) ; Smith , 113 Ill. 2d at 131 , 100 Ill.Dec. 560 , 497 N.E.2d 738 ; Sass , 72 Ill. 2d at 490 -91 , 21 Ill.Dec. 528 , 381 N.E.2d 975 .

2018App. 3d 974 (2006)) and to challenge the construction of an amendment to the Estate Tax Act (Brooker v. Madigan, 388 Ill.

2018App. 3d 974 , 303 Ill.Dec. 522 , 851 N.E.2d 709 (2006) ) and to challenge the construction of an amendment to the Estate Tax Act ( Brooker v. Madigan , 388 Ill.

2018Leetaru , 2015 IL 117485 , ¶¶ 44-45, 392 Ill.Dec. 275 , 32 N.E.3d 583 ; People v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d 87 , 97, 259 Ill.Dec. 845 , 759 N.E.2d 906 (2001) ; Smith , 113 Ill. 2d at 131 , 100 Ill.Dec. 560 , 497 N.E.2d 738 ; Sass , 72 Ill. 2d at 490 -91 , 21 Ill.Dec. 528 , 381 N.E.2d 975 .

2018Leetaru , 2015 IL 117485 , ¶¶ 44-45, 392 Ill.Dec. 275 , 32 N.E.3d 583 ; People v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d 87 , 97, 259 Ill.Dec. 845 , 759 N.E.2d 906 (2001) ; Smith , 113 Ill. 2d at 131 , 100 Ill.Dec. 560 , 497 N.E.2d 738 ; Sass , 72 Ill. 2d at 490 -91 , 21 Ill.Dec. 528 , 381 N.E.2d 975 .

2018Although a complaint filed in accordance with the Protest Moneys Act would name State officers and or agencies as defendants, the statutory remedy—determination of questions related to the “proper disposition of the moneys paid under protest” (30 ILCS 230/2a (West 2014))—would not constitute a claim against the State and would operate outside of the bar of sovereign immunity. ¶ 49 This statutory procedure has been utilized to challenge the retroactive application and constitutionality of an amendment to the Estate Tax Act (McGinley v. Madigan, 366 Ill.

2018Although a complaint filed in accordance with the Protest Moneys Act would name State officers and or agencies as defendants, the statutory remedy-determination of questions related to the "proper disposition of the moneys paid under protest" ( 30 ILCS 230/2a (West 2014) )-would not constitute a claim against the State and would operate outside of the bar of sovereign immunity. *1015 ¶ 49 This statutory procedure has been utilized to challenge the retroactive application and constitutionality of an amendment to the Estate Tax Act ( McGinley v. Madigan , 366 Ill.

2017In appropriate circumstances, plaintiffs may obtain relief in circuit court even where the defendant they have identified in their pleadings is a state board, agency or department. [Citations.] Whether an action is in fact one against the State and hence one that must be brought in the Court of Claims depends on the issues involved and the relief sought. [Citation.] The prohibition against making the State of Illinois a party to a suit cannot be evaded by making an action nominally one against the servants or agents of the State when the real claim is against the State of Illinois itself and w

2010Because no objection to sovereign immunity remained, the supreme court had no occasion to consider whether any filing by the Treasurer impacted its immunity holding in any way. 7 The State calls our attention to the holding in Skelton v. Henry, 390 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2004).

1994(See Betts v. Department of Revenue (1979), 78 Ill.

1974In support of its position for injunctive relief against State officials, appellant cites Joos v. Illinois National Guard, 257 Ill. 138 , as establishing that officers of the State who act under an unconstitutional law or who act outside or beyond the scope of their authority may be enjoined and cannot raise the bar of sovereign immunity.