Rios v. Jones

4 Citing cases

  1. Rios v. Jones

    63 Ill. 2d 488 (Ill. 1976)   Cited 59 times
    In Rios v. Jones (1976), 63 Ill.2d 488, 348 N.E.2d 825, the court upheld a statutory amendment requiring the successful passage of an examination by the plaintiffs, who were foreign-educated holders of Illinois permits to practice medicine.

    We have granted the defendants leave to appeal from the decision of the appellate court holding that section 13a of the Medical Practice Act as amended by Public Act 77-2757 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 91, par. 14a) is unconstitutional. Rios v. Jones, 25 Ill. App.3d 381. The several plaintiffs are all physicians who were born and educated in countries other than the United States and who have been employed by the Department of Mental Health of the State of Illinois. Each of the plaintiffs has been granted a State hospital permit pursuant to section 13a. That section first became law in 1951 and provided that the Department of Registration and Education had the authority to issue a limited license to practice medicine in all its branches to any applicant who was 21 years of age or over, of good moral character, had such training at schools which were reputable and in good standing as under the circumstances the Department deemed sufficient and had been appointed a physician in a hospital maintained by the State. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, ch. 91, par. 14a.)

  2. In re Peak

    59 Ill. App. 3d 548 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that a court may not exceed its authority "no matter how desirable or beneficial the attempted innovation might be"

    The same reasoning will apply in the instant case. The circuit court may not exceed its statutory authority no matter how desirable or beneficial the attempted innovation might be. ( In re Washington; In re Owen; Droste v. Kerner, 34 Ill.2d 495, 217 N.E.2d 73; Rios v. Jones, 25 Ill. App.3d 381, 323 N.E.2d 380.) There is no provision in the Juvenile Court Act for the placement of the minor at a private psychiatric hospital nor for requiring the Department to pay the costs of his treatment after such placement. It is true, as Madison County points out, that the Mental Health Code authorizes a patient to be released from a hospital and placed in a shelter care home and if "a person is placed in a facility outside the Department, the Department may pay the actual costs of residence, treatment or maintenance in such facility * * *."

  3. In re Langdon

    53 Ill. App. 3d 768 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 5 times

    `Courts have no legislative powers, and their sole function is to determine and, within the constitutional limits of the legislative power, give effect to the intention of the lawmaking body. We will not, and cannot inject provisions not found in a statute, however desirable or beneficial they may be.' Droste v. Kerner (1966), 34 Ill.2d 495, 504, 217 N.E.2d 73; Rios v. Jones (1st Dist. 1974), 25 Ill. App.3d 381, 323 N.E.2d 380."

  4. People v. Javurek

    351 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 3 times
    In Javurek, this court noted that section 5-2-4(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections enumerated specific actions which the circuit court is authorized to take, after an acquittal by reason of insanity, and also noted that the circuit court's order that the Department not release, transfer or discharge the defendant until further order of the court was not such an authorized action.

    We will not, and cannot inject provisions not found in a statute, however desirable or beneficial they may be." Droste v. Kerner (1966), 34 Ill.2d 495, 504, 217 N.E.2d 73; Rios v. Jones (1st Dist. 1974), 25 Ill. App.3d 381, 323 N.E.2d 380. The next session of the Illinois General Assembly may wish to consider a revision of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 1005-2-4(b) and the Mental Health Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 91 1/2, par. 10-4) to establish new standards for release, keeping in mind that the effect of a determination of insanity is that no indictable "crime" was committed.