Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Bd.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 47316,47316 |
| Citation | 338 N.E.2d 186,62 Ill.2d 11 |
| Parties | Albert P. NOWICKI, Appellant, v. EVANSTON FAIR HOUSING REVIEW BOARD et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago (William D. Maddux and Gary M. Elden, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Jack M. Siegel, Corporation Counsel, Evanston, for appellees.
In this case an administrative agency, established pursuant to an ordinance of a home rule municipality, determined that the ordinance had been violated and imposed a fine for the violation. The central issue before us relates to the procedure to be used to obtain a judicial review of that administrative determination.
The Evanston Fair Housing Review Board found the plaintiff, Albert Nowicki, guilty of violating the Evanston Fair Housing Ordinance and imposed a fine of $500. He brought this action to review the determination of the Board, and the circuit court of Cook County reversed on the ground that the finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Board appealed, and the appellate court held that the circuit court was without jurisdiction of the plaintiff's action, reversed its judgment, and also affirmed the order of the Board. (25 Ill.App.3d 129, 323 N.E.2d 156.) We granted leave to appeal.
The appellate court was of the opinion that the result is reached was compelled by the decisions of this court in Paper Supply Co. v. City of Chicago (1974), 57 Ill.2d 553, 317 N.E.2d 3, and Cummings v. Daley (1974), 58 Ill.2d 1, 317 N.E.2d 22. We do not agree with that interpretation of those opinions. Each of them involved an assertion by a home rule municipality of the authority to determine for itself both the jurisdiction of the circuit court to review its municipal administrative determinations and the procedure to be followed in seeking judicial review of these determinations.
The Paper Supply Co. case involved the following provision of an ordinance of the City of Chicago:
(57 Ill.2d at 579, 317 N.E.2d at 16.)
This provision of the ordinance was held invalid. The court stated:
'* * * The method of judicial review of the decisions of the defendant city's administrative agencies is not a 57 Ill.2d at 580, 317 N.E.2d at 17.
In Cummings v. Daley, the mayor of Chicago, acting upon the recommendation of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, had suspended for 90 days the real estate licenses of the three plaintiffs, who sought to review that action by common law Certiorari. The defendants contended that this method of review as unavailable because of section 9 of the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance, which provided:
'* * * Any broker whose license has been suspended or revoked by the Mayor, or any complainant aggrieved by the decision of the Mayor, shall have full right to appeal from such order of suspension or revocation in accordance with procedure specified in the Administrative Review Act of Illinois.' (58 Ill.2d 1, 3, 317 N.E.2d at 23.)
The defendants argued that this provision of the ordinance was tantamount to a legislative enactment and so was reviewable only under the provisions of the Administrative Review Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 110, par. 265.) We rejected that contention and again pointed out, quoting from the Paper Supply case, that matters relating to the jurisdiction of courts, and the practice and procedure in those courts, were not functions pertaining to the government and affairs of a home rule municipality. For that reason we held that review by Certiorari was not prohibited and proceeded to consider other issues in the case.
Another division of the Appellate Court, First District, in Quinlan and Tyson, Inc. v. City of Evanston (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graff v. City of Chicago
...does prevent Chicago from specifying a form of prompt judicial review. The cases cited by the majority, Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Board, 62 Ill.2d 11, 338 N.E.2d 186 (1975), and Quinlan & Tyson, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 25 Ill.App.3d 879, 324 N.E.2d 65 (1st Dist.1975), stand ......
-
Hanrahan v. Williams
...(Illinois Department of Public Aid's decision as to entitlement of benefits under food stamp program); Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Board, 62 Ill.2d 11, 338 N.E.2d 186 (1975) (Fair Housing Review Board's decision to impose fine after finding violation of ordinance). We believe, h......
-
Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit Dist. No. 1
...rendered by a tribunal, is necessary if the decision is to be upheld under certiorari review (Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Board (1975), 62 Ill.2d 11, 15, 338 N.E.2d 186; Superior Coal Co. v. O'Brien (1943), 383 Ill. 394, 400-01, 50 N.E.2d 453; Zenith Vending Corp. v. Village of ......
-
Grandco Corp. v. Rochford
...of the record that the agency had jurisdiction and that its action was legal and supported by evidence. Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Board, 62 Ill.2d 11, 338 N.E.2d 186 (1975); People ex rel. Nelson Bros. Storage and Furniture Co. v. Fisher, 373 Ill. 228, 25 N.E.2d 785 (1940); Qu......