Reichert v. COURT OF CLAIMS OF STATE

• Decision Date: 21 February 2003
• Docket Number: No. 93319.,93319.
• Citation: 203 Ill.2d 257,271 Ill.Dec. 916,786 N.E.2d 174
• Parties: Larry REICHERT, Appellant, v. The COURT OF CLAIMS OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS et al., Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

786 N.E.2d 174

203 Ill.2d 257

271 Ill.Dec. 916

Larry REICHERT, Appellant, v. The COURT OF CLAIMS OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS et al., Appellees.

No. 93319.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

February 21, 2003.

Mark S. Johnson and Gary E. Stark, of Johnson & Stark, L.L.C., Cape Girardeau, Missouri, for appellant.

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor

General, and John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee Illinois Court of Claims.

Regina B. Haasis, of Nally, Haasis & Bauer, P.C., Champaign, for intervenor-appellee Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

Justice GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on the petition for writ of certiorari of plaintiff Larry Reichert. He filed his petition in the circuit court of Pope County, seeking review of a ruling on damages made by the Court of Claims in his personal injury action against the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (University). The circuit court denied motions of the University and the Court of Claims for transfer of venue to Sangamon County. The appellate court reversed. 327 Ill.App.3d 390, 261 Ill.Dec. 432, 763 N.E.2d 402. We granted Reichert's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315.

BACKGROUND

In May 1998, Reichert filed an action in the Court of Claims against the University for personal injuries allegedly suffered when his clothing became entangled in a power take-off drive being powered by a tractor owned and operated by the University. Reichert's injuries occurred in Pope County. Section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act (Act) (705 ILCS 505/8(d) (West 2000)) limits damages in a tort case to $100,000. This limitation does not apply, however, where the action arises out of the operation by a state employee of a vehicle owned, leased, or controlled by the state. Reichert claimed that operation of the tractor constituted operation of a state vehicle and he sought damages in excess of $100,000. The University filed a motion to strike the claim for damages. The Court of Claims granted the motion, holding that Reichert's injuries did not arise out of the University's operation of a vehicle as defined in section 8(d).

Reichert filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit court of Pope County, naming the Court of Claims as respondent. The petition alleged that the Court of Claims' decision that the tractor was not a vehicle was against the manifest weight of the evidence and deprived Reichert of a protected property right guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. The circuit court ordered summons to issue, requiring the clerk of the Court of Claims to prepare a certified copy of the official record of the proceedings in Reichert's action against the University and to return the record to the circuit court within 30 days. The Court of Claims filed a motion in the circuit court, seeking to transfer venue to Sangamon County. The Court of Claims argued that its principal offices are in Sangamon County and Cook County and that all pleadings were filed and hearings held in Sangamon County. The Court of Claims further argued that the facts underlying Reichert's injuries in Pope County were irrelevant to the certiorari action, which involved a dispute over statutory interpretation, a question of law. The Court of Claims further noted that venue in an action against a state agency is proper only in a county where the agency has its principal office or where the transaction or any part thereof occurred giving rise to the cause of action. The circuit court denied the motion. The circuit court granted the University's petition for leave to intervene in the certiorari action and denied the University's subsequent motion to transfer venue to Sangamon County.

The University filed a petition for leave to appeal (166 Ill.2d R. 306), which the appellate court granted. The court reversed the decision of the circuit court and transferred venue to Sangamon County. The court determined that, while certiorari is a review procedure, it is also a new cause of action filed against the Court of Claims. In a certiorari proceeding, review is limited to an inspection of the record of the inferior tribunal and the court may not consider any matter not appearing on that record. Thus, none of the issues in Reichert's underlying action against the University were involved in the certiorari action. The transaction that gave rise to Reichert's certiorari action occurred in Sangamon County, where all proceedings in the Court of Claims took place. Therefore, venue was proper only in Sangamon County. 327 Ill.App.3d at 397-98, 261 Ill. Dec. 432, 763 N.E.2d 402.

ANALYSIS

The common law writ of certiorari provides a means whereby a party who has no avenue of appeal or direct review may obtain limited review over action by a court or other tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions. Subject matter jurisdiction over certiorari actions lies in the circuit court. The purpose of certiorari review is to have the entire record of the inferior tribunal brought before the court to determine, from the record alone, whether the tribunal proceeded according to applicable law. Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit District No. 1, 133 Ill.2d 413, 427, 141 Ill.Dec. 453, 551 N.E.2d 640 (1990). Thus, the circuit court acts as a court of review with respect to certiorari actions. The Act provides no method of review of decisions of the Court of Claims. This court has held that certiorari is available to address alleged deprivations of due process by the Court of Claims. Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Court of Claims, 109 Ill.2d 72, 79, 92 Ill.Dec. 521, 485 N.E.2d 332 (1985). However, certiorari may not be used to review the correctness of a decision by the Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it. See Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill.App.3d 499, 503, 221 Ill.Dec. 876, 676 N.E.2d 679 (1997). Requirements of due process are met by conducting an orderly proceeding in which a party receives adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Reyes v. Court of Claims, 299 Ill.App.3d 1097, 1104, 234 Ill.Dec. 58, 702 N.E.2d 224 (1998). Due process is not abridged where a tribunal misconstrues the law or otherwise commits an error for which its judgment should be reversed. See Reyes, 299 Ill.App.3d at 1105, 234 Ill.Dec. 58, 702 N.E.2d 224.

Neither party here has raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to entertain Reichert's certiorari petition. Nonetheless, it is our duty to consider this question. See Eastern v. Canty, 75 Ill.2d 566, 570, 27 Ill.Dec. 752, 389 N.E.2d 1160 (1979). Generally, certiorari will not lie until a final judgment has been entered by the tribunal whose decision is sought to be reviewed. In People ex rel. Stead v. Superior Court, this court stated:

"In Hyslop v. Finch, 99 Ill. 171 , it was said: `A common law certiorari will lie, first, whenever it is shown that the inferior court [of] jurisdiction has exceeded its jurisdiction; second, whenever it is shown that the inferior court [of] jurisdiction has proceeded illegally and no appeal or writ of error will lie.'

`This writ was issuable at common law before the proceedings instituted had culminated in a trial, order or judgment, and was based on the absence or the excess or usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal from which the proceedings were removed.' [Citation.] Where, as in the case at bar, the tribunal whose proceedings are attacked acted

...