Court Opinion

ID: 9519635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:21:02.625688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:34.758340
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY delivered the opinion of the court: Upon petition for rehearing, which we have denied, defendant’s further reliance upon People v. Cain (1966), 75 Ill. App. 2d 282, 221 N.E.2d 127 (abstract), is without merit. We have again read and examined Cain and find the facts there are significantly different from the case at bar. The victim in Cain was a 4-year-old girl who did not testify. The victim in the case at bar testified in detail to the culpable actions of the defendant. We repeat, the Cain opinion is equally without merit because the opinion is only published in abstract form and has no precedental value. It is not generally available to the members of the bar. The Committee Comments to Supreme Court Rule 32 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, par. 32) (repealed October 1, 1971), are indicative of the special problem and the undesirable result caused by appellate courts using opinions published in abstract only. “The Committee was of the opinion that the practice of printing only an abstract of some of the decisions of the Appellate Court is undesirable, as it has the effect of creating a body of precedents not generally available to members of the bar. The Committee understands that the whole question of length, form, and publication of opinions is a topic of current consideration by the judges of the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the rule is framed as discretionary.” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 32, Committee Comments, at 24 (Smith-Hurd 1968). The editorial summary and headnotes provided in cases published in abstract, which are all that are available in both official and unofficial abstract versions of reported appellate court opinions, are not the words of the author of the opinion and in themselves have no binding authority as precedents. Significantly Supreme Court Rule 23 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 23) (effective January 1, 1972), has been regularly used to reduce the number of nonprecedental opinions published in recent years. STENGEL and SCOTT, JJ., concur.