ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 100
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 100/1-30 (2026)

"Contested case" means an adjudicatory proceeding (not including ratemaking, rulemaking, or quasi-legislative, informational, or similar proceedings) in which the individual legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency only after an opportunity for a hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 100/1-30) (from Ch. 127, par. 1001-30)
    Sec. 1-30. "Contested case" means an adjudicatory proceeding (not including ratemaking, rulemaking, or quasi-legislative, informational, or similar proceedings) in which the individual legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency only after an opportunity for a hearing.
(Source: P.A. 87-823.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Nyhammer v. Basta, 2022 IL 128354 (Ill. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nyhammer v. Basta, 2022 IL 128354 (Ill. 2022). · cites it 6× “5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2018). The petitions were appended to the complaint for mandamus, and we summarize them here.”
Applegate v. State of Ill. Dept. of Transp., 783 N.E.2d 96 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Applegate argues a record of his grievance hearing was required because the hearing was a "contested case" as defined in section 1-30 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 1998) ("an adjudicatory proceeding * * * in which the individual legal rights, duties,…”
Callahan v. Sledge, 2012 IL App (4th) 110819 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “) 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2010). Plaintiff fails to reference legal authority that requires CMS to conduct a hearing when reviewing the denial of coverage for medical expenses.”
Applegate v. State of Illinois Dep't of Transp., 335 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Applegate argues a record of his grievance hearing was required because the hearing was a "contested case" as defined in section 1-30 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 1998) ("an adjudicatory proceeding *** in which the individual legal rights, duties,…”
Haaayy, LLC v. Illinois Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 2024 IL App (1st) 221833 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “) 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2020). ¶ 39 The plain language of the Procedure Act therefore applies the “contested case” section only where required by law.”
Nyhammer v. Basta, 2022 IL App (2d) 200460-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “See 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2018). The Department dismissed the petitions without providing any means to effectively appeal or review the decisions and without enacting rules to even validate its actions.”
J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 2024 IL App (5th) 230255 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “) 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2016). In order to be entitled to a hearing before an administrative agency under article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, there must be some constitutional right, statute, or administrative regulation that requires the agency to conduct a hearing…”
Cook Cnty. Bd. of Review v. Prop. Tax Appeal Bd. Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing - replaces opinion filed 8/20/02 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “These cases are readily distinguishable: they were not contested cases within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 1998)). Johnson , 126 Ill.”
City of Chicago v. Labor Relations Bd. Local Panel & Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 743 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “” 5 ILCS 100/1-30 (West 2006). As previously explained, the City was not entitled to a hearing on the present representation petition where the Executive Director’s determination that there were no appropriateness issues warranting a hearing was not clearly erroneous.”
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.