Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Tucker

4 Citing cases

  1. People ex Rel. Lovelace v. Heldebrandt

    470 N.E.2d 1109 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    Under section 108 of the Act, the board of review has the authority to increase or decrease tax assessments. (See O'Connor v. A P Enterprises (1980), 81 Ill.2d 260, 274, 408 N.E.2d 204, 210.) Under subsection (5) of section 108, this authority may be exercised after 20 days' notice by publication and personal service is not required. ( Hartley v. Will County Board of Review (1982), 106 Ill. App.3d 950, 960, 436 N.E.2d 1073, 1081; Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Tucker (1980), 86 Ill. App.3d 630, 634, 408 N.E.2d 364, 367.) It is undisputed that notice pursuant to statute was given in the instant case. The general rule in Illinois is that there is no right to judicial review of an allegedly excessive or fraudulent tax assessment unless the administrative remedy has been exhausted.

  2. P. ex Rel. Bernardi v. Bethune Pl., Inc.

    464 N.E.2d 1116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    Notwithstanding the foregoing contentions, the State tax was not "illegal," "unauthorized," or procured by fraud, necessary requirements before equity will enjoin a tax collection, even in the presence of irreparable harm and an inadequate legal remedy. ( Clarendon Associates v. Korzen (1973), 56 Ill.2d 101, 104-05, 306 N.E.2d 299; Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Tucker (1980), 86 Ill. App.3d 630, 634, 408 N.E.2d 364.) The circuit court did not err in denying defendant equitable relief.

  3. In re Application of Anderson

    462 N.E.2d 1006 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 5 times

    However, no assessment shall be increased until the Board has given notice by publication to the owners of the property affected of the proposed increase and an opportunity to be heard within 20 days after the date of publication. While personal notice of the application of equalization factors is not required by statute ( Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Tucker (1980), 86 Ill. App.3d 630, 634, 408 N.E.2d 364), the notice of hearing requirements prescribed in section 108(5) have been found to be for the benefit and protection of the taxpayers' rights and are therefore mandatory and require strict and timely compliance. In re Application of McHenry County Collector (1980), 91 Ill. App.3d 49, 52, 414 N.E.2d 229, citing Andrews v. Foxworthy (1978), 71 Ill.2d 13, 19-20, 373 N.E.2d 1332.

  4. Hartley v. Will County Bd. of Review

    436 N.E.2d 1073 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 12 times
    In Hartley the court found that review by common law certiorari was proper where plaintiff alleged that the board of review failed to give her notice and opportunity to participate in determinations as required by the applicable statute.

    Although aware of an Illinois Attorney General's opinion (1978 Ill. Op. Att'y Gen. 68) that concluded that multiplier decisions by boards of review were reviewable by the tax appeal board, we find that not to be the case here. The matter was correctly analyzed by the court in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Tucker (1980), 86 Ill. App.3d 630, 634, 408 N.E.2d 364: "Section 109a of the Revenue Act provides that if a decision of a board of review is reviewable by the Property Tax Appeal Board, written notice of the decision and the procedures for review must be personally served on all affected taxpayers.