next case i'd call this morning the weekend and number eighteen case number one zero nine one three seven ryan key public versus by state development agency of the illinois missouri metropolitan district three sixteen the issue presented is whether by state is a local public entity within the meaning of the tort community act that issue is potentially case dispositive because it's undisputed that the lawsuit in this instance was not filed within a year of the accident and as a result of by state is a local public entity the lawsuit is untimely and must be dismissed with prejudice by the peculiar thing about this case is that almost twenty five years ago the fifth district appellate court in a case called grady vs by state addressed this very issue and health squarely without question that i state is a local public entity within the for the proposition that by state is a local public entity subject to the toward immunity act so naturally when this case was filed by state moved to dismiss on the basis that it was not timely filed within the one year limitations period under the toward immunity act and it cited grady cooper and clean tech and then something extraordinary happened the dist or the circuit court judge convened a hearing on the motion to dismiss and that pressuring the judge took evidence in the form of the appellate court record from grady twenty four years earlier also examined the briefs that were filed in the great appeal and decided that he disagreed with them and that the briefs or the started the decision of the appellate court in grady was not binding on him and was not to be followed and denied by state's motion to dismiss and that ultimately drew a supervisory order from this court that directed the circuit judge to grant by state's motion for rule three a way to appeal on the certified issue of whether by state is a local public entity within the meaning of the act and so then the case was pushed up to the fifth district court where again something rather extraordinary occurred despite the fact that the court had ruled clearly twenty four years earlier that by state was a local public entity and reaffirmed that decision in two subsequent rulings appellate court i think in violation of the horizontal stary decisis doctrine decided that grady misstated the law and that was that was extraordinary because this court has made it pretty clear what the standards are under stary decisis when they in an appellate court particularly in the context of a matter of statutory construction is going to deviate from such longstanding precedent you have to clearly you have to show that there's a clear constitutional violation or issue at play there and there is not here i'll explain that the minute i get the merits or you have to show that there's some serious detriment a risk of public prejudice  the president is not overturned or changed and that standard was clearly not met in this case either and i'll tell you why because i think there's three very clear and direct paths that you can use in the context of statutory interpretation to establish why by state is a local public entity the first one is is very direct sort of you know sticking with the mass transit approach kind of the direct flight the only cooperation act which said that interstate compacts which are responsible for mass transit arguments of local government by state it's undisputed is an interstate compact that is responsible for mass transit in the greater st and that was the position that just a smaller took and dissent from that decision and by the fifth district the second route that you can get to the conclusion that by state is a unit of local government or local public entity is just based on the pla language act there's two components is it a governmental entity and is it local certainly it is a governmental entity that's really not even disputed by the plaintiff in this case it operates mass transit it is responsible for infrastructure like streets and roads and bridges and airports it has an eminent domain power it is almost entirely publicly funded so it's clearly government there's no question about that when when created by the compact it was designated a body corporate and politic so there's no question that it's a public entity and in so far as the question of whether it's local it operates within a very confined region of illinois and missouri basically a six county area on either side of the mississippi river it's members of the appointed by the governors of each state are selected from panels chosen locally by the county board so they are local commissioners that's where they come from the state neither illinois enormous serious financially responsible for judgments against my state so it's very clearly on that just a straight up statutory interpretation is it a governmental entity unquestionably it is is it local unquestionably it  is the third route that you can get there is from the issue of sort of legislative acquiescence because and that kind of comes back a little bit to the point of story decisis when you have an opinion by the appellate court dating back to  eighty seven and as well as subsequent opinion since then that have all held that by state is a unit of local government or local public entity and the legislature has amended the definition of a local public entity within the toward immunity act six times since then without ever changing it to exclude by state then that is a very clear indication that the legislature which is presumed to be aware of the court's decisions agrees with them and so there's three dead solid perfect reasons why buy state is a unit of local government a local public entity that is entitled to the protections of the toward immunity act making this case untimely can't do it and then about thirteen years later you have albus versus right our which adopted comparative fault so there was a change in that precedence a judicial policy case not a statutory construction case but what's significant about it is that the court was compelled to make that change because it was of the experience within the jurisprudence that juries were effectively nullifying the concept of contributory negligence when a plaintiff was just barely a fault they weren't finding them one or were not finding it in their favor so it was it was in jury nullification that lead ultimately to the court's adoption of comparative faults was a significant change clearly one of those examples of court of civil procedure and there was clear confusion in the in the court system confusion over what the legislature intended when it adopted reenacted a portion of two six twenty two using a portion that predated this court's decision best so there was clear confusion and the need at that point certain appellate courts within the fourth district had panels who disagreed with one another fair fair situation where horizontal steri decisis wouldn't necessarily apply this case to not present any of those circumstances there was absolutely no just legal justification for the fist fifth district to have completely disregarded the prior decisions in the case law and simply just determined that it should decide to question a new that this was if it were some new question that the court was free to decide almost a novo and to conclude that the prior decision had simply misstated the law and that's not how scary decisis works as this court has pointed out many times it's essential to stability there are courts here at the legislature relies on the court's decision in this respect the public relies upon him even the state of missouri which is our partner in the compact and by state has relied on the decision immigrated from twenty four years ago for some of its jurisprudence and recognizing that by states is a unit of local government in missouri as well the reasoning or the rationale of the fifth district is completely insupportable it seizes upon bits and pieces of article nine of the toward immunity act mischaracterizing the mis stating them it says that by state is required under section nine dash one zero seven to levy taxes and that that violates the compact completely ignores the language in ninety s one of seven that says a local public entity doesn't have to levy taxes but may have taxes levied on its behalf which is precisely how by state operates absolutely no different than the circumstances that were confronted by this court in the carver versus sheriff of the sal county case exact same issue completely disregards that very similar disregard for the law with regard to ninety s one zero six and ninety s one of six this district said well it imposes an obligation that by state to collect money in order to pay its liabilities that's part of ninety s one of six but there's nothing about that that's inconsistent with the compact the compact itself grants the power to by state to use players in revenue and collect fares and make charges in order to raise revenue to pay its liabilities so there's absolutely no inconsistency whatsoever with the fifth district really ignored is that the test under these circumstances is whether the laws passed by one state actually interfere with the interests of the other state and that respect or toward immunity act does not do that there is comparable legislation in missouri that recognizes it recognizes by state as a unit of local government and grants a very similar protections in that being so what what level of consideration should we i'm sorry what level of consideration recognized that by state not by state but entities like by state that are interstate compacts are not arms of the state also characterizing them as units of local government so it's almost i would say in the nature of  comedy in that sense sort of the federal deference to certain state rules almost i think the same concept would apply here it's a matter of comedy recognizing the consistency unless the court has any questions i think this is a  a pretty clear cut case that calls for answering the certified question in the affirmative finding that pi state is indeed a unit of local government a local public entity entitled to the protections of the toward immunity act i think the decision below needs to be reversed i think the court has to remain with instructions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice listed as questions thank you for your time this morning priam hubbell thank you and this court held in nineteen thirty nine that sovereign immunity for local public government was based on a rotten foundation that it was derived from or a divine right of kings and you fou any longer and from now on the legislature enacted certain immunities protecting local units of government you know by state employees are and they have come to you here and have come to the court system claiming that they are a local  in the state of illinois actually they say that they are a local public entity there is nothing local about them they are public but they are equation by federal w governmental body as i have cited in my brief that in the very laws which are not only strong those are not news or as long as they state and i stayed on missouri and by state were in a very public spat were the no senator claire mccaskill wanted to audit their books and they said no we don't have any authority over us you cannot order to our books it was surprising to become aware and surprised by the authority of great workable or badly reason it didn't make any sense meaning d d holding up the appellate court in in the hobble decision was is that governments created by interstate compact are not local public municipal corporation that did not occur here and they're trying to bootstrap them songs they're not mentioned in the definition of the local public in a day they're trying to bootstrap themselves by by the local mass transit district which by definition is there for a mandate local public entity because it says or municipal corporation so in the end it's not true how  contract with by state and paid for services but by state renters madison county immediately to the north of this truce is not true and sinclair county doesn't have to use how you select them you're not liable for their next mission x but that they just not will i mean if the world local means something which as i understand the rules of construction that it was i don't know how you say somebody who's from missouri who is not subject to the laws of the state of illinois by their very own  how you can say that their local now the reason for not invaders cars on stare decisis of the course is it in fact the decision was based on far i don't think i've ever encountered that before i dou construed against or enforcement because we don't have sovereign immunity for local public entities except as except that they're not named in that statute the legislature could always put in that i mean they started out and they just said municipalities so for so on then they added library districts and then they expanded they continue to expand the throwing to units of local government you know small corporations are included but these are any good reason to want to give missouri has a five year statute of limitations illinois has a one year stat and it's a cookie you might be answering as if for no other reason than my curiosity business allegation as to fraud in the greed of first grade just as it is that what prompted the trial court to go into the facts and just a couple of brief points i'd like to make first of all i'm with all due respect to mr cook i think he throws around the words ex parte and fraud a little loosely an appeal is not ex parte simply because not file a brief ex parte means that the case was heard without notice and an opportunity to be heard by the other side that's what x part is but the fact that the happily elected not to file a brief in the graded case is not does not you're dealing with a question of law in the statutory construction i don't i don't see how you defraud the court i mean that would be like me stating appearance saying that because mr cook misunderstands the u s supreme court decision in the about what happened in great is that arguments were made legal arguments were made that in some respects were in error now the court did not make any mistake in grade eight the court in grady found specifically it by state was an interstate compact created by an interstate compact approved by congress it did not find it was created by the local mass transit district act the i think mr cook also miss states or over states exaggerates what errors were made in the by state brief that was filed a quarter of a century ago you know there were really only two errors the right to have a fight at this evidence or hearing that was conven isn't correct stated that it was created by the local mass transit district act and that that was an error i think probably the explanation for that is that the local mass transit district act is part of what provides the  funding mechanism for by state because that act is what allows local districts like in st clair county to create their own districts to pass a tax in order to fund by state so that there wasn't a mistake an error whatever you want to call it it's not fraud fraud deals with facts you know these again are these really the arguments i think it's unfair to the grady court and just from a matter of jurisprudence to suggest that appellate court that the judges don't do their jobs i mean that's the that's the essence of mr cooke's argument he say that that because the apple even file a br examine what the ruling below was before reversing it and that is a clear jurisprudential concern in this case and to suggest that simply because the apple e elected not to file a brief in the grady case that somehow the  court advocate applicator gets its role and its authority and simply accepted at face value what the appellant said and it's brief which the decision clearly reflects the court did not do is is absurd absurd argument mr cook cites the colonel versus patrick case and he's correctly points out there are some ticked in that case that he's trying to use to support his argument here the coverts his patent case was a completely different circumstance involving a completely different aspect of the definition of what is a unit of local government actually was the question of what is a public business in the carroll case that dealt with a mental health facility and that was a not for profit private corporation that really had almost no connection whatsoever to the government it wasn't government owned was government operated was created by a government act or anything of the sort so that case has absolutely no application here whatsoever  and as for the response to justice burke's question that there's no public money involved in by state that too is complete misstatement by mr cook you see clear county as i pointed out the stablished district pursuant to the local mass transit district act which levies sales tax and that sales tax money is what helps one by state and so yes if by state does not have the protections of the tour community act then of course the public money head because it is by virtue of the majority's decision in hubbell but the public is harmed because the purpose of the statute is to protect the public this and that's what's destroyed in this case when you take away that protection to unit of local