ILCS » Chapter 225 · Act 305
Illinois Compiled Statutes

225 ILCS 305/36 (2026)

(Repealed)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(225 ILCS 305/36)
    Sec. 36. (Repealed).
(Source: P.A. 98-976, eff. 8-15-14. Repealed by P.A. 101-346, eff. 8-9-19.)

    
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). “” 225 ILCS 305/36 (West 1992). The language of the Act taken with the consequences prescribed for a violation of its provisions indicate that we must construe the Act as mandatory.”
G.M. Fedorchak & Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co., 822 N.E.2d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 225 ILCS 305/36(a) (West 2002). The Kaplan court reasoned, therefore, that the contract was void because allowing an architectural firm to provide architectural services without being registered was contrary to the public policy behind the Act.”
G.M. Fedorchak & Assoc., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 225 ILCS 305/36(a) (West 2002). The Kaplan court reasoned, therefore, that the contract was void because allowing an architectural firm to provide architectural services without being registered was contrary to the public policy behind the Act.”
— 225 ILCS 305/36(a) — 2 cases
G.M. Fedorchak & Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co., 822 N.E.2d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 225 ILCS 305/36(a) (West 2002). The Kaplan court reasoned, therefore, that the contract was void because allowing an architectural firm to provide architectural services without being registered was contrary to the public policy behind the Act.”
G.M. Fedorchak & Assoc., Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “See 225 ILCS 305/36(a) (West 2002). The Kaplan court reasoned, therefore, that the contract was void because allowing an architectural firm to provide architectural services without being registered was contrary to the public policy behind the Act.”
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.