Dolnick v. Redmond

Decision Date14 April 1972
Docket NumberNo. 55174,55174
Citation283 N.E.2d 113,4 Ill.App.3d 1037
PartiesSamuel DOLNICK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James R. REDMOND, Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1972.

Anthony J. Fornelli, Charles R. Winkler, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.

James W. Coffey, Chicago, for defendants-appellees; Richard E. Girard, Chicago, for counsel.

ENGLISH, Justice.

Plaintiffs are certified principals employed by the Board of Education of the City of Chicago who sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. On May 20, 1970, they filed a Complaint for Injunction against James Redmond, Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, and the members of the Board of Education to enjoin the appointment of three noncertified principals as principals at three schools for the 1970 summer session. The three appointees had been serving as acting principals of schools concerned. Defendants filed a motion to strike and dismiss the complaint, and two of the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. They alleged that they had applied for assignment as principals of the summer school and by the appointment of uncertified principals, would be deprived of their opportunity to serve in that capacity and thus would be irreparably injured.

Defendants again filed a motion to strike and dismiss, memoranda were filed by both sides, and on June 18, 1970, the court sustained defendants' motion, and dismissed the cause of action.

From that order, plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs contend that the court improperly denied their request for an injunction. They argue that the Board of Education violated its own rules by appointing noncertified principals to temporary positions for the 1970 summer session.

Defendants maintain that the question has been rendered moot by the passage of time and is therefore not properly before his court. * Although we believe that this case could properly be disposed of as moot, we have, nonetheless, decided to dispose of this appeal on the issues raised by the pleadings.

Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 122, par. 34--19 invests the Board of Education with the power to 'establish by-laws, rules and regulations, which shall have the force of ordinances, * * *.' In the exercise of that power, the Board enacted Rule 4--20 which provides:

No person shall be appointed to any position on the teaching force without the appropriate certificate therefor, nor shall any person be advanced to a higher position for which an examination is provided than that specified in the certificate, without additional examination and proper certificate for such advanced position.

We agree with plaintiffs that the appointment of noncertified principals violates the above rule, but without alleging their own eligibility for appointment, plaintiffs do not have standing to question the alleged violation. In a proceeding of this kind, a peson has standing to sue when he has an interest which is in fact adversely affected by the administrative action of the board and when such action is judicially reviewable. See 3 K. C. Davis Administrative Law Treatise, ch. 22.01. To be adversely affected, plaintiffs must allege some direct injury and not merely that they will suffer in some indefinite way in common with the class generally. See Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475.

In the present case, plaintiffs' brief states that they do not have a contract with the Board of Education upon which to base a cause of action at law. Also, on oral argument and in their brief, they concede the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Chicago Park Dist. v. City of Chicago, 84-450
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 29, 1984
    ...... Dolnick v. Redmond (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 1037, 283 N.E.2d 113.         In its complaint, the Park ......
  • White Hen Pantry, Inc. v. Cha, 1-90-0582
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 20, 1991
    ......481, 483, 468 N.E.2d 1261, 1263; Dolnick v. Redmond (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 1037, 283 N.E.2d 113, 115.) Further, only a party to the contract ......
  • McHenry County Landfill, Inc. v. Illinois E.P.A., 2-86-0265
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 30, 1987
    ...... (See, Dolnick v. Redmond (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 1037, 1040, 283 N.E.2d 113 (noting that the adverse effect must be ......
  • Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Pollution Control Bd., s. 59451
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 14, 1977
    ...... PCB cites [49 Ill.App.3d 957] Dolnick v. Redmond (1st Dist. 1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 1037, 283 N.E.2d 113 and Swain v. County of Winnebago ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT