People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc. v. Whitler
Decision Date | 15 September 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 52761,52761 |
Parties | , 43 Ill.Dec. 721 The PEOPLE ex rel. NO. 3 J. & E. DISCOUNT, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Robert M. WHITLER, Director of Revenue, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard B. Caifano and Martin E. Litwin, Chicago, for appellants.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Robert G. Epsteen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
On the petition of plaintiffs, No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc., and Victor Brown, the circuit court of Cook County issued a writ of prohibition against defendants, Robert M. Whitler, acting director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, and Norman L. Marcus, a departmental hearings referee. The writ prohibited them from holding a departmental hearing pursuant to section 18a of the Cigarette Tax Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, par. 453.18a) regarding the confiscation of certain packs of cigarettes seized from the plaintiffs. The court, however, refused to prohibit the department from assessing a penalty under section 18b of the Cigarette Tax Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, par. 453.18b). The appellate court held the writ should not have issued, and affirmed the refusal to prohibit the assessment of a penalty. (77 Ill.App.3d 439, 32 Ill.Dec. 770, 395 N.E.2d 115.) We granted plaintiffs' leave to appeal.
The statutes pertinent to this dispute provide in relevant part as follows:
(Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, par. 453.18.)
(Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, par. 453.18b.)
(Emphasis added.) Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, par. 453.20.
This appeal presents two questions: whether in light of the above-quoted statute and the facts of this case the writ of prohibition was properly issued and whether it was properly limited to the section 18a hearing. The facts involved are not disputed. On December 22, 1976, two agents of the Department of Revenue (Department) filed a complaint for a search warrant against plaintiffs' premises in La Grange. The complaint alleged that packs of cigarettes with counterfeit tax stamps were being sold on the premises and that plaintiffs held unstamped packs or packs with counterfeit stamps with the intent to sell them in violation of the penal provisions of the Cigarette Tax Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 120, pars. 453.23, 453.24). A warrant issued the same day, and in the subsequent search the 42,000 packages of cigarettes which are the subject of this litigation were seized. Criminal charges were filed the next day against Victor Brown, apparently the proprietor of the store in La Grange and subsequently coplaintiff in the petition for a writ of prohibition.
Thereafter the Department notified plaintiffs that it intended to hold a hearing to confiscate the seized packages under section 18a and to impose a penalty under section 18b. Plaintiffs then filed this action seeking a writ of prohibition ordering the defendants to "desist and refrain from any further proceedings in the matter," and arguing that section 20 limited the Department to in-court proceedings because the cigarettes were seized pursuant to a search warrant. The court allowed plaintiffs' motion for a temporary writ, thereafter denying defendant's motion to quash and issuing a permanent writ of prohibition ordering the defendants to refrain from any further departmental proceedings to confiscate the cigarettes. Defendants then filed a notice of appeal but subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal and remand the cause because a nolle prosequi had been entered in the criminal case before the writ of prohibition had issued and the judge who issued the writ had not known of this development. The appeal was accordingly dismissed without prejudice and the cause remanded to the circuit court, which again issued a writ prohibiting the Department from holding a hearing to confiscate the seized cigarettes but expressly providing in the order that the Department could hold any other hearing.
In holding the writ should not have issued, the appellate court acknowledged that section 20 of the Cigarette Tax Act says that the circuit court "shall" hold the confiscation hearing when the cigarettes have been seized pursuant to a search warrant but reasoned that a literal interpretation of the statute would unnecessarily frustrate the ability of the Department to enforce the Cigarette Tax Act as the legislature intended. The court thus construed section 20 to require a confiscation hearing in the circuit court only when a criminal prosecution is pending. In its absence the court concluded that section 20 should not be construed to preclude departmental proceedings. Since the criminal action had been nol-prossed, the Department was free to hold both confiscation hearings under section 18a and penalty hearings under section 18b. That court reasoned that the language of the section does not in any way limit the ability of the Department to assess penalties and that, since such action was, in its judgment, ministerial rather than judicial or quasi-judicial, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd.
...legitimate authority; and the petitioner must be without any other adequate remedy. (People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc. v. Whitler (1980), 81 Ill.2d 473, 479-80, 43 Ill.Dec. 721, 410 N.E.2d 854.) Actions of an administrative official, such as a Director of Revenue and his departmen......
-
Administrative Office of Illinois Courts v. State and Mun. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, Local 726
...legitimate authority; and the petitioner must be without any other adequate remedy. (People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc. v. Whitler (1980), 81 Ill.2d 473, 479-80 [43 Ill.Dec. 721, 410 N.E.2d 854].)" Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1989), 127 Ill.2d 453, 468, 130 Ill.......
-
City of Kankakee v. Dep't of Revenue
...Use Tax Act (UTA) (35 ILCS 105/1 et seq. (West 2010)) to be a quasi-judicial action. People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc. v. Whitler, 81 Ill.2d 473, 480, 43 Ill.Dec. 721, 410 N.E.2d 854 (1980) (the actions of the director of the Department of Revenue, as an administrative official, m......
-
Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Urbana v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n
...* * * Fourth, the party seeking the writ must be without any other adequate remedy." People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount v. Whitler (1980), 81 Ill.2d 473, 479-80 , 410 N.E.2d 854, 857. All parties agree that the first two requirements stated above have been met. Additionally, none of the ......