Hornof v. Kroger Co.

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHOUSE
CitationHornof v. Kroger Co., 240 N.E.2d 658, 40 Ill.2d 545 (Ill. 1968)
Decision Date24 September 1968
Docket NumberNo. 41163,41163
PartiesFlorence HORNOF et al., Appellants, v. The KROGER CO. et al., Appellees.

John E. W. Timm and Arthur F. Siebel, George D. Crowley, and Kenart M. Rahn and Philip J. Simon, Chicago, for appellants.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John J. O'Toole, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for appellee State.

Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Arvey Hodes & Mantynband, and Winston, Strawn, Smith & Patterson, Chicago (Thomas M. Thomas, Thomas F. Dean, Herman Smith, and Richard W. Austin, Chicago, of counsel), for other appellees.

HOUSE, Justice.

This appeal is a clear attempt to inject new issues and to relitigate the appeal in Docket No. 39669, opinion in which was released on May 23, 1966, and is reported in 35 Ill.2d 125, 219 N.E.2d 512.

The only issue originally was the constitutionality of the 1963 and 1965 amendments to the Illinois Retailers' Occupation Tax Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, 1965, chap. 120, par. 440,) and the Illinois Use Tax Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, 1965, chap. 120, par. 439.2,) which extended the retailers' occupation tax and use tax to transactions where trading stamps were redeemed for merchandise. The circuit court of Cook County found the amendments unconstitutional and issued injunctions directing that taxes collected under the amendments be held in separate protest funds pending outcome of the litigation. We reversed and remanded with directions.

After denial of rehearing and dismissal of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court plaintiffs filed a motion in the trial court to set the cause for hearing on apportionment of the protest fund. The motion was denied and a decree was entered dissolving the injunctions, directing the transfer of the monies held in the protest funds to the General Revenue Fund and dismissing the several complaints for want of equity.

This appeal is predicated upon the assumption that by remanding after reversal this court intended the trial court to conduct further proceedings apparently in the nature of accounting. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court did not follow the mandate of this court.

Our remanding order in No. 39669 read: 'The decree of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion with respect to the tax monies held in protest funds.' The issues raised on the first appeal were...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 17, 1981
    ...as to conform to those instructions. (House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane (1969), 42 Ill.2d 45, 48, 245 N.E.2d 468; Hornof v. The Kroger Co. (1968), 40 Ill.2d 545, 240 N.E.2d 658.) Defendant's reliance upon Moulding-Brownell Corp. v. E. C. Delfosse Construction Co. (1940), 304 Ill.App. 491, 26 ......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 1, 1980
    ...10 Ill.App.3d 363, 364, 293 N.E.2d 758; Hamilton v. Faulkner (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 415, 418, 238 N.E.2d 631; see Hornof v. Kroger Co. (1968), 40 Ill.2d 545, 546, 240 N.E.2d 658). The court in Hamilton v. Faulkner stated the rule as "Where, after reviewing a case on its merits, this court re......
  • House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1969
    ...with the directions contained in the mandate. Precise and unambiguous directions in a mandate must be obeyed.' (Hornof v. The Kroger Co., 40 Ill.2d 545, 240 N.E.2d 658; Fisher v. Burks, 285 Ill. 290, 120 N.E. 768.) In this case the trial court properly followed the mandate by refusing to co......
  • Trunkline Gas Co. v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1968
  • Get Started for Free