ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 75
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 75/1 (2026)

Bills passed before June 1

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 75/1) (from Ch. 1, par. 1201)
    Sec. 1. Bills passed before June 1.
    (a) A bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective date in the terms of the bill shall become effective on January 1 of the following year, or upon its becoming a law, whichever is later.
    (b) A bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does provide for an effective date in the terms of the bill shall become effective on that date if that date is the same as or subsequent to the date the bill becomes a law; provided that if the effective date provided in the terms of the bill is prior to the date the bill becomes a law then the date the bill becomes a law shall be the effective date.
(Source: P.A. 88-597, eff. 11-28-94.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (Ill. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (Ill. 2017). “1 Neither public act contains an effective date, but pursuant to the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS 75/0.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (Ill. 2016). “By contrast, the amendment at issue here was delayed by operation of section 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective…”
People v. Clark, 2024 IL 127838 (Ill. 2024). “(West 2014)), because the underlying bill was “passed” prior to June 1, 2015 (see 5 ILCS 75/3 (West 2014)), the effective date for Public Act 99-69 was January 1, 2016 (see 5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)). Ill. Const. 1970, art.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (Ill. 2017). “By contrast, the amendment at issue here was delayed by operation of section 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective…”
People v. Hunter, 2016 IL App (1st) 141904 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Under section 1 of the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), however, bills passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year “shall become effective on January 1 of the following year, or upon its becoming a law, whichever is later.”
People v. Scott, 2016 IL App (1st) 141456 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014). The State claims that, because the legislature passed Public Act 99-258 knowing that, under the Effective Date of Laws Act, it would not go into effect until the following year, it signaled its intent to delay the effective date of the law.”
People v. Patterson, 2016 IL App (1st) 101573-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “1, 2016); 5 ILCS 75/1 (West 2014). ¶ 14 Public Act 99-258 includes a provision expressly limiting the retroactive application of the amendment to section 5-805.”
Orsa v. The Police Bd. of the City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 141904 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Under section 1 of the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), however, bills passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year “shall become effective on January 1 of the following year, or upon its becoming a law, whichever is later.”
People v. Rodriguez, 2017 IL App (1st) 141379 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “¶ 61 Noting both that nothing in the text of the amendment to section 5-130 itself indicates its temporal reach and that the effective date of January 1, 2016, was not expressly chosen by the legislature but applied by default, pursuant to the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS…”
People v. Patterson, 2016 IL App (1st) 101573-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “1, 2016); 5 ILCS 75/1 (West 2014). ¶ 14 Public Act 99-258 includes a provision expressly limiting the retroactive application of the amendment to section 5-805.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (Ill. 2016). “By contrast, the amendment at issue here was delayed by operation of section 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective…”
Mouloki v. Epee (N.D. Ill. 2018). “5 ILCS 75/1(a). The default date provided under the Effective Date of Laws Act is consistent with the effective date of the 2011 amendment to the Wage Act.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 5 ILCS 75/1(a) — 11 cases
People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (Ill. 2017). “1 Neither public act contains an effective date, but pursuant to the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS 75/0.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (Ill. 2016). “By contrast, the amendment at issue here was delayed by operation of section 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective…”
People v. Clark, 2024 IL 127838 (Ill. 2024). “(West 2014)), because the underlying bill was “passed” prior to June 1, 2015 (see 5 ILCS 75/3 (West 2014)), the effective date for Public Act 99-69 was January 1, 2016 (see 5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)). Ill. Const. 1970, art.”
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (Ill. 2017). “By contrast, the amendment at issue here was delayed by operation of section 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective…”
People v. Hunter, 2016 IL App (1st) 141904 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Under section 1 of the Effective Date of Laws Act (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), however, bills passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year “shall become effective on January 1 of the following year, or upon its becoming a law, whichever is later.”
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.