Worthen v. Village of Roxana

12 Citing cases

  1. Burns v. Department of Employment Security

    342 Ill. App. 3d 780 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Reversing dismissal of plaintiff's complaint where plaintiff had made a good-faith effort

    And we "should not find hypertechnical excuses to avoid deciding the merits of disputes, when no delay or harm was caused by the technical violation to any party." Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill.App.3d 378, 382, 191 Ill.Dec. 468, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993).        As noted above, the Review Law requires an affidavit by the plaintiff designating the "last known address" of each defendant.

  2. Ross v. Illinois

    395 Ill. App. 3d 1073 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2004). In Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill. App. 3d 378, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993), this court ruled that under a very narrow circumstance, a plaintiff could amend her petition for review, to comply with the relevant filing requirements, after it had been filed. There, the plaintiffs had served all the necessary parties but failed to name one necessary party in the caption of their petition.

  3. Meminger v. Ill. Dep't of Human Servs.

    2024 Ill. App. 4th 230647 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 15 Nevertheless, plaintiff relies on Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill.App.3d 378, 382 (1993), for the proposition that courts should not find hypertechnical excuses to avoid deciding the merits of a case where no delay or harm was caused by the technical violation to any party. In Worthen, the court decided whether the petitioners' failure to name a necessary party in the caption of their petition for review was a fatal defect where the unnamed party was properly served and petitioners, without delay, requested leave to amend the petition to add the unnamed party to the caption. Worthen, 253 Ill.App.3d at 381.

  4. Palos Bank & Trust Co. v. Ill. Prop. Tax Appeal Bd.

    2015 Ill. App. 143324 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    Burns, 342 Ill.App.3d at 794, 277 Ill.Dec. 304, 795 N.E.2d 972 (attendant at pro se desk in clerk's office listed incorrect address on summons; that address was for the agent that represented the defendant in the administrative proceeding, and defendant never informed the other parties that it had terminated its relationship with that agent); see also City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 108 Ill.App.3d 979, 64 Ill.Dec. 493, 439 N.E.2d 1301 (1982) (good-faith exception applied where plaintiff filed complaint on the last day for filing and requested that summons issue on that same day, but circuit clerk did not issue summons until the following Monday). By contrast, Palos does not allege that any error on the part of the clerk's office prevented it from properly serving the Board.¶ 19 Finally, in Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill.App.3d 378, 191 Ill.Dec. 468, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993), plaintiffs failed to name the Pollution Control Board (PCB), a necessary party, in their complaint for administrative review, but they properly served the PCB with a copy of the complaint. Additionally, when plaintiffs were advised of their error, they immediately moved to amend their complaint to add the PCB to the caption.

  5. Bevis v. Pollution Control Board

    289 Ill. App. 3d 432 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 2 times
    In Bevis v. Pollution Control Board, 289 Ill.App.3d 432, 436 (1997), the court found that the undefined term "applicant" in the context of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (West 1992)) simply meant "one who applies."

    McGaughy, 165 Ill.2d at 12, 649 N.E.2d at 410. The good-faith-effort test is applicable in an Environmental Protection Act context. See, e.g., Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill. App.3d 378, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993); Environmental Control Systems, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 258 Ill. App.3d 435, 630 N.E.2d 554 (1994). The cases petitioners cite in support of their good-faith-effort plea reflect entirely distinct factual settings.

  6. McGaughy v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    165 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1995)   Cited 37 times
    Finding that Department of Human Rights was a necessary party to review action and that plaintiffs' failure to name the department in their complaint required dismissal

    We note that neither petitioner sought leave to amend her petition for review to join all necessary parties, and therefore we need not consider here whether, and under what circumstances, amendments to defective petitions should be allowed. See Worthen v. Village of Roxana (1993), 253 Ill. App.3d 378, 381-82 (allowing amendment); Parham v. Macomb Unit School District No. 185 (1992), 231 Ill. App.3d 764, 768-69 (allowing amendment). We believe that the conclusion in Lockett that parties must strictly comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Administrative Review Law for obtaining review of an administrative action applies equally as well to actions brought under our Rule 335.

  7. Twyman v. Ill. Dep't of Emp't Sec.

    77 N.E.3d 1087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ¶ 38 However, we are mindful, as we have stated in a prior unemployment benefits case, that we " ‘should not find hypertechnical excuses to avoid deciding the merits of disputes, when no delay or harm was caused by the technical violation to any party.’ " Burns , 342 Ill.App.3d at 787, 277 Ill.Dec. 304, 795 N.E.2d 972 (quoting Worthen v. Village of Roxana , 253 Ill.App.3d 378, 382, 191 Ill.Dec. 468, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993) ). In the case at bar, the state defendants suffered no harm from plaintiff's two-day delay in filing.

  8. Twyman v. Dep't of Emp't Sec.

    77 N.E.3d 1087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ¶ 38 However, we are mindful, as we have stated in a prior unemployment benefits case, that we " ‘should not find hypertechnical excuses to avoid deciding the merits of disputes, when no delay or harm was caused by the technical violation to any party.’ " Burns , 342 Ill.App.3d at 787, 277 Ill.Dec. 304, 795 N.E.2d 972 (quoting Worthen v. Village of Roxana , 253 Ill.App.3d 378, 382, 191 Ill.Dec. 468, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993) ). In the case at bar, the state defendants suffered no harm from plaintiff's two-day delay in filing.

  9. Timber Creek Homes, Inc. v. Ill. Pollution Control Bd.

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 140909 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Moreover, neither the PCB nor this court is allowed to reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill. App. 3d 378, 384 (1993); McLean County Disposal, Inc. v. County of McLean, 207 Ill. App. 3d 477, 480 (1991). Further, this court is permitted to rely on the PCB's expert consideration of each criterion. City of Rockford, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 314.

  10. Vogue Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Office of the State Fire Marshal

    354 Ill. App. 3d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Strict adherence to the procedures of the Review Law and the supreme court rules is required and section 3-113(b) does not provide an exception that allows a petitioner to amend its petition for review to name the agency as respondent. The "good-faith effort" exception advocated by Vogue was applied by the court in Worthen v. Village of Roxana, 253 Ill. App. 3d 378, 382, 623 N.E.2d 1058 (1993), before the legislature amended section 3-113(b) of the Review Law to specifically delineate when a petitioner is allowed to amend its petition for review. See Cook County Sheriffs Enforcement Ass'n, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 858 (explaining that "through the amendment, the legislature intended to limit when the appellate court may grant leave to amend a petition for review thereby precluding the application of the good-faith-effort exception to the joinder requirement").