735 ILCS 5/3-113
Direct review of administrative orders by the appellate court
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/3-113)
Sec. 3-113. Direct review of administrative orders by the appellate court.
(a) Unless another time is provided specifically by the law authorizing
the review, an action for direct review of a final administrative decision of
an administrative agency by the appellate court shall be commenced by the
filing of a petition for review in the appellate court within 35 days from the
date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the
party affected by the decision. The method of service of the decision shall be
as provided in the Act governing the procedure before the administrative
agency, but if no method is provided, a decision shall be deemed to have
been served either when a copy of the decision is personally delivered or
when a copy of the decision is deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed
envelope or package, with postage prepaid, addressed to the party affected by
the decision at his or her last known residence or place of business.
(b) The petition for review shall be filed in the
appellate court and shall specify the parties seeking review and shall
designate the respondent and the order or part thereof to be reviewed. The
administrative agency and all persons, other than the petitioner, who were parties of record to the
proceedings before the
administrative agency shall be made respondents. The method of service of the decision shall be as provided in the Act governing the procedure before the administrative agency, but if no method is provided, a decision shall be deemed to have been served either when a copy of the decision is personally delivered or when a copy of the decision is deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope or package, with postage prepaid, addressed to the party affected by the decision at his or her last known residence or place of business. The form of the summons and the issuance of alias summons shall be according to rules of the Supreme Court.
If, during the course of a review action, the court determines that an agency or a party
of record to the administrative proceedings was not made a defendant as
required by the preceding paragraph, then the
court shall grant the plaintiff 35 days from the date of the determination in
which to name and serve the unnamed agency or party as a defendant. The court shall
permit the newly served defendant to participate in the proceedings to the
extent the interests of justice may require.
(c) The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly apply to all actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly. (Source: P.A. 95-831, eff. 8-14-08.)
(735 ILCS 5/Art. IV heading) ARTICLE IV
ATTACHMENT
|
(735 ILCS 5/Art. IV Pt. 1 heading) Part 1.
In General
|
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of School Trustees
Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of School Trustees (2006)
“The appellate court applied section 3-113(b) of the Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 1998)), which contains language identical to the section 3-107 exception, and allowed amendment of the petition for review to add the board of review as a defendant.”
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n (2024)
“”); see also 735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2022) (establishing the procedures for statutory direct review).”
Dahman v. Illinois Department of Human Rights (2002)
“See 735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2000) ("Direct review of administrative orders by the appellate court").”
Slater v. Illinois Labor Relations Board (2019)
“5 ILCS 315/11(e) (West 2016); 735 ILCS 5/3-113(a), (b) (West 2018); Ill.”
Moren v. Illinois Dept. of Human Rights (2003)
“On May 7, 2001, the Chief Legal Counsel Designee (the Designee), Alice M. Ralph, entered an order sustaining the dismissal of petitioner's complaint.”
Jones v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2013)
“” 735 ILCS 5/3-113(a) (West 2012). The Board’s final decision -2- is dated July 25, 2012.”
Fraternal Order of Police v. Illinois Labor Relations Board (2011)
“Based on these circumstances, the Board found that the record did not “allow for meaningful consideration” of an effects-bargaining claim and rejected the ALJ’s determination that the City violated a duty to bargain over the effects of the consolidation decision.”
Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission (1996)
“335) and section 3-113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 1994)) of an order of respondent, Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission), issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity to respondent, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (Agency), for…”
1411 North State Condominium v. The Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (2016)
“1, 1994), section 16-195 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/16-195 (West 2014)), and section 3-113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2014)). ¶ 33 ANALYSIS ¶ 34 On appeal, the Association’s primary contention is that the Appeal Board erred, as a matter of…”
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Illinois Labor Relationws Board, Local Panel (2017)
“Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this direct appeal from the Board’s ruling pursuant to that section, as well as section 3-113 of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2014)) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 (eff.”
Crawley v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 2016) (in a direct administrative review action in the appellate court, “[t]he administrative agency and all persons, other than the petitioner, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made…”
Kankakee County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board (2012)
“The County filed a petition for direct review pursuant to section 16-195 of the Property Tax Code (the Code) (35 ILCS 200/16-195 (West 2008)) and section 3-113 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2008)). The County claims the PTAB erred, inter alia:…”
— 735 ILCS 5/3-113(a) — 11 cases
Slater v. Illinois Labor Relations Board (2019)
“5 ILCS 315/11(e) (West 2016); 735 ILCS 5/3-113(a), (b) (West 2018); Ill.”
Jones v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2013)
“” 735 ILCS 5/3-113(a) (West 2012). The Board’s final decision -2- is dated July 25, 2012.”
Moren v. Illinois Dept. of Human Rights (2003)
“On May 7, 2001, the Chief Legal Counsel Designee (the Designee), Alice M. Ralph, entered an order sustaining the dismissal of petitioner's complaint.”
People v. Grabeck (2011)
Barron v. Ford Motor Company (2022)
— 735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) — 15 cases
Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of School Trustees (2006)
“The appellate court applied section 3-113(b) of the Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 1998)), which contains language identical to the section 3-107 exception, and allowed amendment of the petition for review to add the board of review as a defendant.”
Dahman v. Illinois Department of Human Rights (2002)
“See 735 ILCS 5/3-113 (West 2000) ("Direct review of administrative orders by the appellate court").”
Crawley v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2019)
“See 735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 2016) (in a direct administrative review action in the appellate court, “[t]he administrative agency and all persons, other than the petitioner, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made…”
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.
|