Court Opinion

ID: 9745232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:42:28.572333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.809775
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent and would decide the appeal on the merits. In Berry v. Industrial Com. (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 274, the court stated that the statute required that the receipt for the probable cost of the record be exhibited to the clerk of the circuit court before the writ of certiorari is issued in order to coerce payment of the cost of preparing the Industrial Commission’s record. In Berry the court held that a confirmation by telephone to the circuit clerk was sufficient compliance with the statute. An attorney is an officer of the court and under our rules the certification of an attorney is accepted without question that he has given notice to opposing parties and performed other acts required either by statutes or rules. Here, counsel on December 9, 1981, filed an affidavit with the clerk stating that on December 3, 1981, he had sent a check to the Industrial Commission. That this was true is confirmed by the fact that the Industrial Commission issued its receipt dated December 7, 1981. If instead of filing an affidavit counsel had suggested that a deputy clerk call the Industrial Commission’s office in Chicago he would have been in compliance with Berry. Under these circumstances shown, his affidavit of compliance should be adequate to accomplish the same result. JUSTICE SIMON joins in this dissent.