City of Urbana v. Fuerst

2 Citing cases

  1. City of Elgin v. Hawthorne

    204 Ill. App. 3d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    ( City of Naperville v. Bernard (1985), 139 Ill. App.3d 784, 785; Village of Mundelein v. Taylor (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 819, 822.) The court in City of Urbana v. Fuerst (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 570, 573, held that section 5-9-1(d) of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1005-9-1(d)), which requires that the court consider a defendant's resources and ability to pay a fine in determining the amount and method of payment of the fine, does not apply to proceedings for violations of municipal ordinances. The court stated, "[b]ecause of the necessity of dealing with many ordinance violation cases rapidly, imposing a requirement that a record be made in each case of consideration by the court of the section 5-9-1(d) elements would not seem wise."

  2. Kadzielawski v. Bd. of Fire Police Com

    194 Ill. App. 3d 676 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    Neither side probes the circuit court's analogy to ordinance violations, however, and guiding case law is scant. See generally Springfield v. Ushman (1979), 71 Ill. App.3d 112, 388 N.E.2d 1357 (discussing applicability of the Uniform Code of Corrections section 5-9-1 to ordinance violation carrying penalty of $500 minimum and $1,000 maximum); City of Urbana v. Fuerst (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 570, 526 N.E.2d 907 (holding that Code provision requiring consideration of offender's ability to pay a fine was not applicable to village ordinance that permitted consecutive fines in building code violation case). • 9 We conclude that the circuit court in the pending case did not abuse its discretion and that there was a rational basis for the reduction of the fines.