Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
56 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Village of Vernon Hills v. Vernon Fire Protection Districtgreen2 sentences2001The special legislation clause “expressly prohibits the General Assembly from conferring a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” Best, 179 Ill. 2d at 391 ; Village of Vernon Hills, 168 Ill. 2d at 122 . 2001IV, § 13. *953 The special legislation clause "expressly prohibits the General Assembly from conferring a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated." Best, 179 Ill.2d at 391 , 228 Ill.Dec. 636 , 689 N.E.2d 1057 ; Village of Vernon Hills, 168 Ill.2d at 122 , 212 Ill.Dec. 883 , 658 N.E.2d 365 . | 5 | 12 |
Best v. Taylor MacHine Worksgreen2 sentences2023Under the clause, the General Assembly may not confer “a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” Id. ¶ 119 We employ a two-part test to determine whether a law is special legislation. 2012IV, § 13)] expressly prohibits the General Assembly from conferring a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 390-91 , 689 N.E.2d 1057, 1069 (1997). | 4 | 16 |
Big Sky Excavating, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.green2 sentences2020Instead, to contravene the special legislation clause, “the statute must confer on a person, entity, or class of persons or entities a special benefit or exclusive privilege that is denied to others who are similarly situated.” Id. ¶ 87 Here, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that section 4.5 of the Act discriminates in favor of a select group and against a similarly situated group. 2020Instead, to contravene the special legislation clause, “the statute must confer on a person, entity, or class of persons or entities a special benefit or exclusive privilege that is denied to others who are similarly situated.” Id. ¶ 87 Here, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that section 4.5 of the Act discriminates in favor of a select group and against a similarly situated group. | 2 | 8 |
In Re Estate of Jolliffgreen2 sentences2007In re Estate of Jolliff, 199 Ill. 2d 510, 519 (2002). 2007In re Estate of Jolliff, 199 Ill. 2d 510, 519 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Marriage of Blaisdell v. Blaisdellgreen2 sentences2005See In re Marriage of Blaisdell, 142 Ill. 2005See In re Marriage of Blaisdell , 142 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Bridgewater v. Hotzgreen2 sentences1994IV, § 13.) Special legislation confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated. ( Bridgewater v. Hotz (1972), 51 Ill.2d 103, 109-10 , 281 N.E.2d 317 .) The special legislation provision does not, however, prohibit all classification. 1994App. 3d 799 .) We hold that the population classification of section 14.14 of the Act fails both prongs of this test and that section must therefore be declared facially unconstitutional. •2 "Special legislation confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” (Cutinello, 161 Ill. 2d at 417 , citing Bridgewater v. Hotz (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 103, 109-10 .) Special legislation "arbitrarily, and without a sound, reasonable basis, discriminates in favor of a select group” and "differs from a violation of equal protectio | 1 | 10 |
Cutinello v. Whitleygreen2 sentences1996Our supreme court has found that special legislation "confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 417 , 641 N.E.2d 360, 363 (1994). 1996Our supreme court has found that special legislation "confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 417 , 641 N.E.2d 360, 363 (1994). | 1 | 7 |
Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1990In short, it prohibits legislation which arbitrarily discriminates in favor of a select group.” (Bilyk, 125 Ill. 2d at 236 ; see Chicago National League Ball Club, 108 Ill. 2d at 367 ; Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 130, 137-38 .) Historically, a number of laws that apply to communities with a particular attribute, usually a certain population level, have been challenged as special legislation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano
green
2 sentences1994Special legislation confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or group of persons to the exclusion of other similarly situated. ( Bridgewater v. Hotz (1972), 51 Ill.2d 103, 109-10 , 281 N.E.2d 317 .) "It arbitrarily, and without a sound, reasonable basis, discriminates in favor of a select group." (Emphasis omitted.) ( Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano (1980), 83 Ill.2d 130, 137-38 , 46 Ill.Dec. 574 , 414 N.E.2d 458 .) Prior to the 1970 constitution, deference was accorded the legislature to determine whether a general law could be made applicable. 1994App. 3d 799 .) We hold that the population classification of section 14.14 of the Act fails both prongs of this test and that section must therefore be declared facially unconstitutional. •2 "Special legislation confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated.” (Cutinello, 161 Ill. 2d at 417 , citing Bridgewater v. Hotz (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 103, 109-10 .) Special legislation "arbitrarily, and without a sound, reasonable basis, discriminates in favor of a select group” and "differs from a violation of equal protectio | 11 | 1981–1994 |
Bilyk v. Chicago Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2012In short, it prohibits legislation which arbitrarily discriminates in favor of a select group.” Bilyk, 125 Ill. 2d at 236 . ¶ 63 Where, as here, a statute does not affect a fundamental right or involve a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, the determination as to whether it violates the equal protection and special legislation clauses is conducted under the rational basis test, under which the statutory classification will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate State interest. 1990In short, it prohibits legislation which arbitrarily discriminates in favor of a select group.” (Bilyk, 125 Ill. 2d at 236 ; see Chicago National League Ball Club, 108 Ill. 2d at 367 ; Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 130, 137-38 .) Historically, a number of laws that apply to communities with a particular attribute, usually a certain population level, have been challenged as special legislation. | 2 | 1990–2012 |
Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 203 Ill. 2d 64, 86 , 783 N.E.2d 1024 (2002). 2004Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 203 Ill. 2d 64, 86 , 783 N.E.2d 1024 (2002). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Village of Hanover Park v. Hanover Park Fire Protection District
green
2 sentences2001With respect to the special legislation clause of section 13, the law is well settled: "While this section prohibits the General Assembly from conferring a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or group to the exclusion of others similarly situated, it does not prohibit all classifications. [Citation.] Only arbitrary legislative classifications are prohibited. [Citation.] If any set of facts can reasonably be conceived that justifies the distinction of the class to which the statute applies from the class to which the statute is inapplicable, then the General Assembly may constitu 2001With respect to the special legislation clause of section 13, the law is well settled: “While this section prohibits the General Assembly from conferring a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or group to the exclusion of others similarly situated, it does not prohibit all classifications. [Citation.] Only arbitrary legislative classifications are prohibited. [Citation.] If any set of facts can reasonably be conceived that justifies the distinction of the class to which the statute applies from the class to which the statute is inapplicable, then the General Assembly may constitu | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Piccioli v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System
green
1 sentence2023Piccioli v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System, 2019 IL 122905, ¶ 18 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vavra v. Belmont Fire Protection District
green
1 sentence1994(Belmont, 111 Ill. 2d at 380 .) Such legislation is prohibited by the Illinois Constitution of 1970, which provides that "[t]he General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Jenkins v. Wu
green
2 sentences1987“Special legislation” has been defined by our supreme court as that which “ ‘confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated. [Citation.] It arbitrarily, and without a sound, reasonable basis, discriminates in favor of a select group.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Jenkins v. Wu (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 468, 478 , 468 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 , quoting Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 130 , 414 N.E.2d 458 . 1987“Special legislation” has been defined by our supreme court as that which “ ‘confers a special benefit or exclusive privilege on a person or a group of persons to the exclusion of others similarly situated. [Citation.] It arbitrarily, and without a sound, reasonable basis, discriminates in favor of a select group.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Jenkins v. Wu (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 468, 478 , 468 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 , quoting Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 130 , 414 N.E.2d 458 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Youhas v. Ice
green
2 sentences1984Youhas v. Ice (1974), 56 Ill.2d 497 , 309 N.E.2d 6 ; People ex rel. 1984Youhas v. Ice (1974), 56 Ill.2d 497 , 309 N.E.2d 6 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.