Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Illinois addressed a motion by the Chicago Land Clearance Commission to file a short record and dismiss an appeal by Inez White and others. The appeal stemmed from a Cook County circuit court order that denied the appellants' motion to dismiss a condemnation petition, which was related to the 1949 amendment to section 12 of the Eminent Domain Act. Under the previous law, such orders were not final and thus not appealable. The 1949 amendment was applicable only when the state filed a declaration of taking, and the court denied a motion to strike that declaration. However, since the declaration of taking was determined to be unconstitutional in a related case (Dept. of Public Works and Buildings v. Gorbe), the 1949 amendment is rendered ineffective. Consequently, the court found that the order in question was not final, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The motion to dismiss was granted.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Unconstitutional Amendments on Legal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the 1949 amendment to section 12 of the Eminent Domain Act was ineffective due to a related case declaring the declaration of taking unconstitutional.
Reasoning: However, since the declaration of taking was determined to be unconstitutional in a related case (Dept. of Public Works and Buildings v. Gorbe), the 1949 amendment is rendered ineffective.
Finality of Orders in Eminent Domain Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the order denying the appellants' motion to dismiss the condemnation petition was not a final order, and thus not appealable under the law.
Reasoning: Under the previous law, such orders were not final and thus not appealable.
Requirements for Appeal Under Amended Eminent Domain Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed because it did not meet the criteria set forth in the 1949 amendment, as the amendment was contingent upon a constitutional declaration of taking.
Reasoning: The 1949 amendment was applicable only when the state filed a declaration of taking, and the court denied a motion to strike that declaration.