Case ID: ill-2d_211/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(Nos. 95401, 95651 cons.
    SOUTH 51 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. SARA D. VEGA, Director of the Department of Illinois Financial Institutions, Appellee.
    
      Opinion filed April 15, 2004.
    
    Rehearing denied May 24, 2004.
    
    
      McMORROW C.J., took no part.
    Ronald S. Safer, of Schiff, Hardin & Waite, of Chicago, for appellant South 51 Development Corporation.
    Terrence P. Canade, Hugh C. Griffin and Hugh S. Balsam, of Lord, Bissell & Brook, L.L.E, and Roger J. Kiley and Michele Odorizzi, of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, L.L.E, all of Chicago, for appellant Cottonwood Financial, Ltd.
    Thomas R. Rakowski, of Connelly, Roberts & Mc-Givney, L.L.C., and Dan K. Webb, Bruce R. Braun, Raymond W Mitchell and James R. Thompson, of Winston & Strawn, L.L.E, all of Chicago, for appellants Advance America, Check Into Cash of Illinois, L.L.C., and Check ’N Go of Illinois, Inc.
    Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Deborah L. Ahlstrand, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), and David W Ellis, of Williams, Collins & Bax, EC., and William J. Harte, Special Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, for appellee.
    
      Deborah M. Zuckerman and Michael Schuster, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae AARE
    Robert J. Ruiz and Thomas A. Rieck, of the Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Richard A. Devine, State’s Attorney of Cook County.
    Gino L. DiVito, Caesar A. Tabet and Marnie A. Jensen, of Tabet, DiVito & Rothstein, L.L.C., of Chicago, for amici curiae Monsignor John Egan Campaign for Payday Loan Reform et al.
    
   PER CURIAM:

In this case, one Justice of this Court has recused herself and the remaining members of the Court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value. See Perlman v. First National Bank, 60 Ill. 2d 529, 530 (1975).

McMORROW, C.J., took no part.