Court Opinion

ID: 9744189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:56:35.967341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.339185
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRESLIN, specially concurring: I am unconvinced that the Haskell and Graunke courts interpreted section 10a(c) as the legislature intended. I arrive at this conclusion because the entire thrust of section 10a addresses the relief that those who suffer actual damages can receive under the Act and how that relief is to be acquired. Section 10a(c) empowers the court to grant injunctive relief to these people and in the same breath empowers the court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the “prevailing party.” 815 ILCS 505/10a(c) (West 1996). In light of the purposes of the Act, it appears to me that the legislature was referring to a party who prevails in bringing an action for actual damages under section 10a. Such an interpretation would exclude defendants. However, I recognize that Haskell and Graunke were decided several years ago. I have to presume that the legislature’s silence regarding the courts’ interpretation of section 10a(c) demonstrates its intent to acquiesce to judicial construction. Fink v. Ryan, 174 Ill. 2d 302, 673 N.E.2d 281 (1996); People v. Hairston, 46 Ill. 2d 348, 263 N.E.2d 840 (1970); People v. Avery, 277 Ill. App. 3d 824, 661 N.E.2d 361 (1995). For this reason, I concur.