ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., 87158.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation727 N.E.2d 1022,191 Ill.2d 26,245 Ill.Dec. 288
Docket NumberNo. 87158.,87158.
PartiesESG WATTS, INC., Appellant, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, Appellee.
Decision Date23 March 2000

727 N.E.2d 1022
191 Ill.2d 26
245 Ill.Dec.

ESG WATTS, INC., Appellant,

No. 87158.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 23, 2000.

727 N.E.2d 1024
Stephen R. Swofford, and Christine L. Olson, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago (Bruce L. Carmen, of counsel), for Appellant

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield (Joel Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Brian F. Barov, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, of counsel), for Appellee.

Justice FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case petitioner ESG Watts, Inc. (Watts), sought review of a decision of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) in the Illinois appellate court. The appellate court dismissed Watts' action because Watts did not name the State of Illinois as a respondent in its petition for review. The question before us is whether it was proper for the appellate court to dismiss the appeal. We find that dismissal was proper, and affirm.


In May 1996, the State, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint before the Board captioned "People of the State of Illinois v. ESG Watts, Inc." The State alleged that Watts had violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1994)) by failing to update closure cost estimates or provide adequate cost assurances for a sanitary landfill it had been operating. In February 1998, after conducting a hearing and receiving evidence, the Board found Watts liable and imposed a $256,000 fine.

In March 1998, Watts filed a petition for administrative review of the Board's decision. Watts petitioned directly to the appellate court, as required by the Act. See 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (West 1994). However, the only respondent Watts named in the petition was the Board. The Board moved to dismiss the action, contending that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because Watts had not named the State as a respondent. The appellate court granted the Board's motion and dismissed the case. No. 4-98-0229 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We granted Watts' petition for leave to appeal. See 177 Ill.2d R. 315(a).


There is no question that Watts failed to name the State as a respondent in its petition for review in the appellate court. The sole issue presented to this court is the effect of Watts' failure to name the State. Accordingly, as the operative facts are undisputed, our standard of review is de novo. Envirite Corp. v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 158 Ill.2d 210, 214, 198 Ill.Dec. 424, 632 N.E.2d 1035 (1994).

Before addressing the arguments raised by the parties, we begin with a brief overview of the principles pertaining to judicial review of administrative actions. Although the Illinois Constitution grants an appeal as a matter of right from all final judgments of the circuit court (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 6), there is no constitutional right to appeal administrative decisions. Rather, the appellate and circuit courts have only such powers to review administrative actions "as provided by law." Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 6 (appellate court); art. VI, § 9 (circuit court). See also Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 526-27, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992), citing Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 6 ("the Illinois appellate court has only such power of direct review as the legislature may provide"). In this case, the statute which provides for

727 N.E.2d 1025
judicial review is section 41(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/41(a) (West 1994)). Section 41(a) provides in pertinent part that any party adversely affected by a final order or determination of the Board
"may obtain judicial review, by filing a petition for review * * *, under the provisions of the Administrative Review Law, as amended[,] and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, except that review shall be afforded directly in the Appellate Court for the District in which the cause of action arose and not in the Circuit Court." 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (West 1994).

Section 41(a) thus incorporates by reference the requirements of the Administrative Review Law (Review Law) and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. Both section 113(b) of the Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 1994)) and our Supreme Court Rule 335 (155 Ill.2d R. 335) address petitions for review of administrative agency decisions in the appellate court. These provisions are identical with respect to who must be named as a respondent. Each provides that a petition for review "shall specify the parties seeking review and shall designate the respondent and the order or part thereof to be reviewed. The agency and all other parties of record shall be named respondents." 735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 1996); 155 Ill.2d R. 335(a).

In light of the above, this court has held that administrative review actions, whether taken to the circuit court or directly to the appellate court, involve the exercise of "special statutory jurisdiction." McGaughy v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 165 Ill.2d 1, 6-7, 208 Ill.Dec. 348, 649 N.E.2d 404 (1995) (appellate court); Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Ill.2d 202, 210-11, 93 Ill.Dec. 360, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985) (circuit court). When a court is exercising special statutory jurisdiction the language of the act conferring jurisdiction delimits the court's power to hear the case. A party seeking to invoke special statutory jurisdiction thus "must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures" in the statute. McGaughy, 165 Ill.2d at 12, 208 Ill.Dec. 348, 649 N.E.2d 404. See also Carver v. Nall, 186 Ill.2d 554, 558, 239 Ill.Dec. 567, 714 N.E.2d 486 (1999) (because Administrative Review Law is a departure from common law, "a party seeking judicial review of an administrative decision must strictly adhere to the" procedures prescribed therein). Section 102 of the Review Law reinforces this point, by explicitly stating that a party is barred from obtaining judicial review of an administrative decision "[u]nless review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner herein [i.e., in the Review Law] provided." 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 1996). Accordingly, absent strict compliance with section 41(a) of the Act, including the provisions of the Review Law and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, which section 41(a) incorporates by reference, the appellate court cannot consider the appeal. 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 1996); Carver, 186 Ill.2d at 558, 239 Ill. Dec. 567, 714 N.E.2d 486; McGaughy, 165 Ill.2d at 12, 208 Ill.Dec. 348, 649 N.E.2d 404.

Watts first contends that the petition for review acts as a notice of appeal, and it should thus be subject to the same liberal rules of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • In re GO, 87476.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 23, 2000
    ...Testing the Validity, 47 U. Kan. L.Rev. at 1055.10 Sound justifications favor adoption of a per se rule. Beneath a certain age, no 727 N.E.2d 1022 person can reliably be believed to make a knowing waiver of the right against self-incrimination. Two well-known studies show that only a few pe......
  • People ex rel. Madigan v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 23, 2015
    ...25 N.E.3d 601 Parties seeking to invoke such jurisdiction must strictly comply with the Act. ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 191 Ill.2d 26, 30, 245 Ill.Dec. 288, 727 N.E.2d 1022 (2000) ; see also Lockett v. Chicago Police Board, 133 Ill.2d 349, 353, 140 Ill.Dec. 394, 549 N.E.2d ......
  • Van Milligen v. Dept. of Employment Sec., 2-06-0098.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 22, 2007
    ...this case. Recent cases provide further support for our construction of section 3-103(2). In ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 191 Ill.2d 26, 36, 245 Ill.Dec. 288, 727 N.E.2d 1022 (2000), the court stated that the legislature has never generally departed from the requirement that ......
  • Ultsch v. Illinois Mun. Retirement Fund, 102232.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • August 2, 2007
    ...Trustees of St. Clair County, 218 Ill.2d 175, 181-82, 300 Ill.Dec. 15, 843 N.E.2d 273 (2006); ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 191 Ill.2d 26, 29-30, 245 Ill.Dec. 288, 727 N.E.2d 1022 (2000). The Administrative Review Law was an innovation and a departure from the common law, and ......
  • 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