Court Opinion

ID: 9530717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:02:56.560782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:13.923846
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring: I specially concur because I wish to comment on certain aspects of this case’s procedural history. The defendant sought the certification of a question involving its affirmative defenses to the complaint. Rather than certifying the defendant’s question, the trial court certified the plaintiffs question. This court initially refused to entertain the appeal but was ordered to do so by the Illinois Supreme Court. Our opinion does not answer the question originally certified to this court. The opinion, rather, recasts the question in a manner that we believe addresses the true issue(s) to be resolved by this appeal. I have no qualms with this court recasting the question because I believe that, when the Illinois Supreme Court ordered this court to entertain this appeal, it implicitly ordered us to resolve the issue(s) in contention rather than the “awkward” issue prepared by the plaintiff and certified by the trial court. I submit that, in granting or denying leave to appeal, this court is required to review the question certified pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308, which is more restrictive than the supervisory exercise of discretion by the Illinois Supreme Court. 155 Ill. 2d R. 308; see In re Detention of Anders, 304 Ill. App. 3d 117, 120 (1999), citing Lanxon v. Magnus, 296 Ill. App. 3d 377, 379 (1998) (the scope of our review pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 is strictly limited to the questions certified by the trial court). In the future, I would admonish the trial court and the parties to pay close attention to the question or questions certified under Rule 308 lest leave to appeal be denied, or worse, the question(s) certified be answered.