ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 70
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 70/2 (2026)

The provisions of any statute, so far as they are the same as those of any prior statute, shall be construed as a continuation of such prior provisions, and not as a new enactment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 70/2) (from Ch. 1, par. 1101)
    Sec. 2. The provisions of any statute, so far as they are the same as those of any prior statute, shall be construed as a continuation of such prior provisions, and not as a new enactment.
(Source: R.S. 1874, p. 1011.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: O'Casek v. Child.'s Home & Aid Soc'y, 892 N.E.2d 994 (Ill. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'Casek v. Child.'s Home & Aid Soc'y, 892 N.E.2d 994 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 6× “' 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 2004). While this general rule is not limited to cases of implicit repeal, it is relevant to our analysis in that context.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clark, 837 N.E.2d 74 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 2004). While this general rule is not limited to cases of implicit repeal, it is relevant to our analysis in that context.”
O'Casek v. Childrens Home & Aid Soc'y of Illinois, 374 Ill. App. 3d 507 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “This is clear from the fact that the legislature specifically rejected the civil-reform version of section 2-622 as a source for its 2005 amendments and instead "continued" the pre-1995 version of the statute (with the exception of the naprapath amendment).”
O'Casek v. Child.'s Home & Aid, 874 N.E.2d 150 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Given the 2005 passage of Public Act 94-677 and its accompanying amendments to section 2-622, the question now becomes "when did the civil-reform language, including the voluntary-dismissal language, disappear from the statute"? According to Public Act 94-677, the civil-reform…”
People v. Nicholson, 701 N.E.2d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “) 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 1996). Also of consideration is the provision contained in article IV, section 8, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, which states: "A bill expressly amending a law shall set forth completely the sections amended.”
O'Casek v. Child.'s Home & Aid Soc'y of Illinois (Ill. 2008). · cites it 3× “’ 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 2004). While this general rule is not limited to cases of implicit repeal, it is relevant to our analysis in that context.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clark (Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 2004). While this general rule is not limited to cases of implicit repeal, it is relevant to our analysis in that context.”
Ephraim v. Provident Bank (In Re Ephraim), 318 B.R. 419 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004). “4 Ordinarily, according to 5 ILCS 70/2, that reiteration would mean that the statute is continued, not reenacted.”
People v. Nicholson (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “) 5 ILCS 70/2 (West 1996). Also of consideration is the provision con­tained in article IV, section 8, of the Illinois Constitu­tion of 1970, which states: "A bill expressly a­mend­ing a law shall set forth com­plet­ely the sec­tions amen­ded.”
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.