People ex Rel. Compton v. Penn

2 Citing cases

  1. Village of Oak Park v. Pension Board

    362 Ill. App. 3d 357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that whether a disability was duty-related is a pure question of fact and, therefore, subject to the manifest weight standard of review

    We agree with the Village that the statutory provision at issue is ambiguous. See In re B.L.S., 202 Ill. 2d 510, 517 (2002) ("[a] statute is ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses"); People ex rel. Compton v. Penn, 33 Ill. App. 3d 372, 373 (1975) ("[a]re these sections then to be construed as requiring unanimous action by the [board] * * * or do they require only action by a majority of all [of] them or only action by a majority of those who participate in the undertaking?"); In re Timothy T., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1260, 1263 (2003) ("Both respondent and the State offer reasonable interpretations of [the statute].

  2. Hickey v. Illinois Racing Board

    678 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, the Board contends that, under Illinois law, the vote of a majority of a quorum validates the Board's action. See People ex rel. Compton v. Penn, 33 Ill. App.3d 372, 375-77, 342 N.E.2d 280 (1975) (stating common law rule that, absent contrary statutory language, board action need only be approved by the vote of a majority of a quorum). However, the plaintiff contends that section 14(a) is not silent as to the voting requirements in matters of license suspension or revocation.