Court Opinion

ID: 9711651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:36:04.143883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:06.518084
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORAN, specially concurring: There is but one issue in this case: Did the Board’s petition contain sufficient allegations of immediate and irreparable injury, as required by statute, to alleviate the need of notice prior to the issuance of a preliminary injunction? The court answered this question early in its opinion by stating: “The Board made no allegation that in the time it would take to notify MEA’s attorney that the Board was seeking an injunction there would be greater immediate and irreparable injury than without notice.” 85 Ill. 2d at 401. By continuing, the court has obfuscated the law as it relates to the type of notice, if any, required prior to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. To hold, even under the circumstances of this case, that a telephone call in lieu of formal notice was required leads to a dangerous precedent with attending difficulties. Will a telephone call cure an insufficient complaint, as in the instant case? How is verification of such notice to be accomplished? This case is an example where an unresolved question remains: Did the attorneys agree to substitute notice via a telephone call? These and other collateral issues will arise to plague the expeditious processing of like cases.