Opinion ID: 2236288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of the Boyle Ruling

Text: On April 7, 1997, the Fourth District of our appellate court took notice of the circuit court's ruling in the Boyle case and ordered that appeals within the district should be processed according to the law as it existed prior to the Act's effective date. See People v. Dainty, No. 4-97-0221 (4th Dist. April 7, 1997) (unpublished order). As a result, the appellate court transferred the appeal which had been docketed according to the redistricting mandated by the Actback to the appellate district in which it would previously have been docketed. Although the appellate court acknowledged that it was not bound by the circuit court's ruling in Boyle, it recognized that a certain degree of uncertainty and confusion currently existed with respect to the proper constitutional venue for appeals in this state. This court thereafter entered an administrative order in Dainty in which we (i) vacated the appellate court's order and (ii) directed it to reinstate Dainty's appeal. We further found that the decision of the circuit court in Boyle is binding only on the parties thereto, as law of the case, and is not binding on the Supreme, Appellate, or Circuit Courts of Illinois. We therefore ordered that the Fourth District shall receive, docket, and process all appeals coming to it from those counties within its appellate jurisdiction as defined by the Judicial Redistricting Act of 1997. Although both the Boyle ruling and the Dainty order are not before this court today, both cases played key roles in the causes consolidated for our review today.