ILCS » Chapter 225 · Act 305
Illinois Compiled Statutes

225 ILCS 305/2 (2026)

Declaration of public policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(225 ILCS 305/2) (from Ch. 111, par. 1302)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2030)
    Sec. 2. Declaration of public policy. The practice of architecture in the State of Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health, safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest. It is further declared to be a matter of public interest and concern that the practice of architecture, as defined in this Act, merit and receive the confidence of the public, and that only qualified persons be authorized to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. This Act shall be liberally construed to best carry out these subjects and purposes.
(Source: P.A. 86-702.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2005 · leading case: Kaplan v. Tabb Assocs., Inc., 657 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaplan v. Tabb Assocs., Inc., 657 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “(225 ILCS 305/2 (West 1992).) Section 2 of the Act indicates that it shall be liberally construed to best carry out the outlined subjects and purposes.”
G.M. Fedorchak & Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co., 822 N.E.2d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “In the instant case, Ground Zero’s section 2 — 619 motion asserted the affirmative defense that Fedorchak could not foreclose the mechanic’s lien because the contract upon which it was based was void. Ground Zero contended that the contract was invalid because Fedorchak was not…”
G.M. Fedorchak & Assoc., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “In the instant case, Ground Zero's section 2--619 motion asserted the affirmative defense that Fedorchak could not foreclose the mechanic's lien because the contract upon which it was based was void. Ground Zero contended that the contract was invalid because Fedorchak was not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.