ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 70

5 ILCS 70/1.25

Unless an Act otherwise specifically provides, any writing of any kind or description required or authorized to be filed with, and any payment of any kind or description required or authorized to be paid to, the State or any political subdivision thereof, by the laws of this State:         (1) if transmitted through the United States mail,     shall be deemed filed with or received by the State or political subdivision on the date shown by the post office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope or other wrapper containing it;         (2) if mailed but not received by the State or     political subdivision, or if received but without a cancellation mark or with the cancellation mark illegible or erroneous, shall be deemed filed with or received by the State or political subdivision to which it was required or authorized to be directed on the date it was mailed, but only if the sender establishes by competent evidence that the writing or payment was deposited, properly addressed, in the United States mail on or before the date on which it was required or authorized to be filed or was due

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 70/1.25) (from Ch. 1, par. 1026)
    Sec. 1.25. Unless an Act otherwise specifically provides, any writing of any kind or description required or authorized to be filed with, and any payment of any kind or description required or authorized to be paid to, the State or any political subdivision thereof, by the laws of this State:
        (1) if transmitted through the United States mail,
    
shall be deemed filed with or received by the State or political subdivision on the date shown by the post office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope or other wrapper containing it;
        (2) if mailed but not received by the State or
    
political subdivision, or if received but without a cancellation mark or with the cancellation mark illegible or erroneous, shall be deemed filed with or received by the State or political subdivision to which it was required or authorized to be directed on the date it was mailed, but only if the sender establishes by competent evidence that the writing or payment was deposited, properly addressed, in the United States mail on or before the date on which it was required or authorized to be filed or was due. In cases in which the writing or payment was mailed but not received, the sender must also file with, or pay to, the State or political subdivision to which the writing or payment was required or authorized to be directed, a duplicate writing or payment within 30 days after written notification is given to the person claiming to have sent the writing or payment, by the State or political subdivision to which the writing or payment was required or authorized to be sent, of its non-receipt of the writing or payment.
    If a writing or payment is sent by United States registered mail, certified mail or certificate of mailing, a record authenticated by the United States Post Office of such registration, certification or certificate shall be considered competent evidence that the writing or payment was mailed. The date of registration, certification or certificate shall be deemed the postmarked date.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither a petition for nomination as a candidate for political office nor a petition to submit a public question to be voted upon by the electors of the State or of any political subdivision or district may be considered filed until it is received by the political subdivision, election authority, or the State Board of Elections, as applicable.
(Source: P.A. 97-81, eff. 7-5-11.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: People v. Lugo
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Lugo (2009) illappct · cites it 4× “25 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006)). Section 1.25 provides: "Unless An Act otherwise specifically provides, any writing of any kind or description required or authorized to be filed with * * * the State or any political subdivision thereof, by the laws of…”
Baca v. Trejo (2009) illappct · cites it 3× “25 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006)). Those sources do not favor the application of a mailbox rule to documents consigned to private carriers.”
Thomas v. Diener (2004) illappct · cites it 2× “]" 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2002). The trial court found: "Defendant, in support that his method of mailing complied with 750 ILCS 28/35, did not produce any evidence when the mail was picked up at his private rural mail box, or that the rural mail carrier had any duty to pick up…”
Gruszeczka v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (2013) ill “” 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2012). ¶ 27 In none of the above-cited cases in which the courts construed statutes as containing a mailbox rule did the legislature respond by amending the statute to preclude it.”
Norris v. Industrial Commission (2000) illappct · cites it 4× “25 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 1996)), maintained that “filing” under the Act was accomplished upon placing the petition in the mail properly posted and addressed to the Commission.”
Wickman v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (2008) illappct · cites it 2× “) 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006). The Code does not indicate when an appeal is considered filed, so the foregoing provision applies.”
People v. Grabeck (2011) illappct “” 5 ILCS 70/1.25(1) (West 2008). These norms have been established to apply in specific situations; they are not interchangeable and cannot be applied to different situations by -13- two types of service results in an error of four days legally and at least one day in reality.”
BLTREJV3 Chicago, LLC v. Kane County Board of Review (2014) illappct “5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2012). Section 9-5 of the Tax Code provides that each county assessor, board of appeals, and board of review “shall make and publish reasonable rules for the guidance of persons doing business with them and for the orderly dispatch of business.”
BLTREJV3 Chicago, LLC v. The Kane County Board of Review (2014) illappct “Section 9-5 of the Tax Code provides that each county assessor, board of appeals, and board of review “shall make and publish reasonable rules for the guidance of persons doing business with them and for the orderly dispatch of business.” 35 ILCS 200/9-5 (West 2012).”
Gruszeczka v. Workers'compensation Com'n (2012) illappct · cites it 3× “See 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2008). If a mailbox rule were to be engrafted upon the 20-day commencement period mandated in section 19(f)(1), it is the legislature that must do so, not the judiciary under guise of statutory interpretation.”
Clark v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. (2002) illappct “office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope or other wrapper containing it; (2) if mailed but not received by the State or political subdivision, or if received but without a cancellation mark or with the cancellation mark illegible or erroneous, shall be deemed filed…”
Wickman v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (2008) illappct · cites it 2× “) 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006). The Code does not indicate when an appeal is considered filed, so the foregoing provision applies.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 5 ILCS 70/1.25(1) — 3 cases
Baca v. Trejo (2009) illappct “25 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006)). Those sources do not favor the application of a mailbox rule to documents consigned to private carriers.”
People v. Grabeck (2011) illappct “” 5 ILCS 70/1.25(1) (West 2008). These norms have been established to apply in specific situations; they are not interchangeable and cannot be applied to different situations by -13- two types of service results in an error of four days legally and at least one day in reality.”
Baca v. Trejo (2009) illappct
— 5 ILCS 70/1.25(2) — 2 cases
Wickman v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (2008) illappct “) 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006). The Code does not indicate when an appeal is considered filed, so the foregoing provision applies.”
Wickman v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (2008) illappct “) 5 ILCS 70/1.25 (West 2006). The Code does not indicate when an appeal is considered filed, so the foregoing provision applies.”
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.