Wirtz v. Quinn

2 Citing cases

  1. Wirtz v. Quinn

    2011 IL 111903 (Ill. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    In Wirtz v. Quinn, 2011 IL 111903, ¶ 93, the plaintiffs challenged an appropriations bill as violative of our constitution's single-subject clause.

    ¶ 2 The appellate court held that Public Act 96-34 violates the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8(d)), and that the three remaining public acts were invalid based on language making their enactment contingent on the enactment of Public Act 96-34. 407 Ill. App. 3d 776. ¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court.

  2. Tomm's Redemption, Inc. v. Hamer

    2014 Ill. App. 131005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 34 times
    Noting that “[a]fter final judgment, a plaintiff has no statutory right to amend a complaint and a court commits no error by denying a motion for leave to amend”

    The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and we affirm. .Section 35 has been amended several times in the past few years, but the provision at issue here has not changed. The section was also briefly declared to be unconstitutional for reasons not related to this case by Wirtz v. Quinn, 407 Ill.App.3d 776, 347 Ill.Dec. 562, 942 N.E.2d 765 (2011), which was later overturned by Illinois Supreme Court. See Wirtz v. Quinn, 2011 IL 111903, 352 Ill.Dec. 218, 953 N.E.2d 899.