law equitable doctrine in Illinois

2019Id. ¶ 38 ; Lopez , 2018 IL App (1st) 170733 , ¶ 59, 427 Ill.Dec. 379 , 118 N.E.3d 580 . ¶ 20 In Lopez , we explained the de facto officer doctrine as follows: "The de facto officer doctrine is a common law equitable doctrine that 'confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.' Ryder v. United States , 515 U.S. 177 , 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031 , 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995).

2019Id. ¶ 38 ; Lopez , 2018 IL App (1st) 170733 , ¶ 59, 427 Ill.Dec. 379 , 118 N.E.3d 580 . ¶ 20 In Lopez , we explained the de facto officer doctrine as follows: "The de facto officer doctrine is a common law equitable doctrine that 'confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.' Ryder v. United States , 515 U.S. 177 , 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031 , 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995).

2024Nonetheless, even assuming that res judicata did not apply, we otherwise agree with the circuit court that the de facto officer doctrine independently warranted dismissal. ¶ 46 De Facto Officer Doctrine ¶ 47 “The de facto officer rule is a common law equitable doctrine that confers validity on acts performed by an official acting under the color of official title, even though it is later determined that the official’s appointment to that position was legally deficient.” Malacina v. Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board, 2021 IL App (1st) 191893, ¶ 20 (citing Goral, 2020 IL 125085, ¶ 71 .) “Under t

2024Nonetheless, even assuming that res judicata did not apply, we otherwise agree with the circuit court that the de facto officer doctrine independently warranted dismissal. ¶ 45 De Facto Officer Doctrine ¶ 46 “The de facto officer rule is a common law equitable doctrine that confers validity on acts performed by an official acting under the color of official title, even though it is later determined that the official’s appointment to that position was legally deficient.” Malacina, 2021 IL App (1st) 191893, ¶ 20 (citing Goral, 2020 IL 125085, ¶ 71 ).

2007Considering Rule 804(b)(6) when analyzing the common law equitable doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing does not conflict with the statement in Crawford that the protection afforded by the confrontation clause does not depend on “the vagaries of the [r]ules of [e]vidence.” See United States v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364, 370 (6th Cir. 2005), quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61 , 158 L.

2007Considering Rule 804(b)(6) when analyzing the common law equitable doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing does not conflict with the statement in Crawford that the protection afforded by the confrontation clause does not depend on “ ‘the vagaries of the [rjules of [ejvidence.’ ” See United States v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364, 370 (6th Cir. 2005), quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61 , 158 L.

2019In other words, under the doctrine, 'a person actually performing *447 *665 the duties of an office under color of title is considered to be an officer de facto , and his acts[,] as such officer[,] are valid so far as the public or third parties who have an interest in them are concerned.' Vuagniaux v. Department of Professional Regulation , 208 Ill. 2d 173 , 186-87, 280 Ill.Dec. 635 , 802 N.E.2d 1156 (2003) (citing People ex rel.

2019In other words, under the doctrine, 'a person actually performing *447 *665 the duties of an office under color of title is considered to be an officer de facto , and his acts[,] as such officer[,] are valid so far as the public or third parties who have an interest in them are concerned.' Vuagniaux v. Department of Professional Regulation , 208 Ill. 2d 173 , 186-87, 280 Ill.Dec. 635 , 802 N.E.2d 1156 (2003) (citing People ex rel.