Court Opinion

ID: 9819127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:43.352802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:10.695770
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: Although I agree with the result reached by the court today, I do not fully agree with the analysis used in reaching that result. For the reasons expressed in my special concurrence in Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82, 97 (2003) (Freeman, J., specially concurring, joined by McMorrow, C.J., and Kilbride, J.), I remain concerned about the court’s use of section 4 of the Statute on Statutes in the context of the Landgraf test for determining the retroactivity of a statute. I continue to believe that the better approach in these cases is to apply the Landgraf test in the manner set forth by the United States Supreme Court, and as was contemplated by this court in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (2001). Applying that test (see Commonwealth Edison, 196 Ill. 2d at 38 (applying Landgraf test); see also People v. Ramsey, 192 Ill. 2d 154, 186 (2000) (Freeman, J., specially concurring, joined by McMorrow, J.) (discussing application of Landgraf with the context of criminal cases)), I reach the same conclusion as that reached by my colleagues — that the amendment at issue here may not be applied retroactively. JUSTICE McMORROW joins in this special concurrence.