"When ruling on a motion to dismiss under section 2-619, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party." O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 15. Further, when a circuit court dismisses a claim pursuant to section 2-619, "the questions presented are whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Alternatively, defendants argue plaintiff lacks standing to bring this claim for mandamus because plaintiff failed to plead that he suffered an injury from the Sheriffs failure to use the State's Attorney to prosecute proceedings before the Merit Board. See O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 33. "Standing is 'some injury in fact to a legally recognized interest.'

Alternatively, defendants argue plaintiff lacks standing to bring this claim for mandamus because plaintiff failed to plead that he suffered an injury from the Sheriff's failure to use the State's Attorney to prosecute proceedings before the Merit Board. See O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 33. "Standing is ˜some injury in fact to a legally recognized interest.'

¶ 12 The appellate court reversed, holding that O'Connell, as a former County employee, maintained a contractual right pursuant to the Pension Code to receive, postemployment, the ordinary disability benefit by the Board and the required contributions to the Benefit Fund on his behalf by the County. 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 24. The appellate court applied the canons of liberal construction and considered the beneficial nature of pension laws to conclude that "[n]othing in the operative language [of the Pension Code] suggests that the disabled employee [who began receiving disability benefits when he was actively working] must continue to be employed to remain eligible for disability benefits or for the county to be required to continue making contributions." Id.

The doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by its companions) provides that the meaning of an ambiguous term can be ascertained by relating it to words or phrases associated with the term in the statutory context. See O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 28; see also Puritan Finance Corp. v. Bechstein Construction Corp., 2012 IL App (1st) 112261, ¶ 13. ¶ 40 The defendants, however, argue that the plaintiffs' interpretation would violate the statutory rule that statutes should be read as a whole and construed so that no part is rendered meaningless or superfluous.

(Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/12-108(a) (West 2018). As the statute unambiguously provides that a dormant judgment may be revived, we need not apply any canons of statutory construction. See O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 23. ¶ 36 The other cases cited by Louis are also unavailing.

¶ 41 "When determining whether a listing in a statute is exclusive, courts use the rule of statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius." O'Connell v. County of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 201031, ¶ 26. This rule "is based on logic and common sense.