ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 305

820 ILCS 305/26

Any wilful neglect, refusal or failure to do the things required to be done by any section, clause or provision of this Act, on the part of the persons herein required to do them, or any violation of any of the provisions or requirements hereof, or any attempt to obstruct or interfere with any court officer, or any other person charged with the duty of administering or enforcing this Act, is a petty offense

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 305/26) (from Ch. 48, par. 138.26)
    Sec. 26. Any wilful neglect, refusal or failure to do the things required to be done by any section, clause or provision of this Act, on the part of the persons herein required to do them, or any violation of any of the provisions or requirements hereof, or any attempt to obstruct or interfere with any court officer, or any other person charged with the duty of administering or enforcing this Act, is a petty offense.
    The Attorney General and the State's Attorney of each county, upon the request of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, shall enforce any penalties set forth in this Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-721, eff. 1-1-05.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2003 · leading case: Hollowell v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hollowell v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware (2001) illappct “Absent punitive damages, there would be little deterrent preventing employers from terminating employees and paying a small fine for violating the Act (see 820ILCS 305/26 (West 1996)). Kelsay, 74 Ill.”
Eisenberg v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois (2003) illappct “Finally, count I, paragraphs 50 and 51, alleged that the burden of proof was not properly established in the Act because the Act provides for both a petty offense in section 26 (820 ILCS 305/26 (West 2000)) and a civil penalty.”
Hollowell v. Wilder Corp. (2001) illappct “Absent punitive damages, there would be little deterrent preventing employers from terminating employees and paying a small fine for violating the Act (see 820 ILCS 305/26 (West 1996)). Kelsay , 74 Ill.”
Eisenberg v. Industrial Comm'n (2003) illappct “Finally, count I, paragraphs 50 and 51, alleged that the burden of proof was not properly established in the Act because the Act provides for both a petty offense in section 26 (820 ILCS 305/26 (West 2000)), and a civil penalty.”
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.