Court Opinion

ID: 9529576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:52:07.747368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:51.173045
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORAN, dissenting: This court may issue a declaratory judgment only if an actual controversy exists. (Underground Contractors Association v. City of Chicago (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 371, 375; Dean Milk Co. v. City of Aurora (1949), 404 Ill. 331, 334.) It cannot issue an advisory opinion based on the possibility of future harm or injury. (Exchange National Bank v. County of Cook (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 419, 422; Dee-El Garage, Inc. v. Korzen (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 1, 11.) In the case before us, the majority admits that there is no actual controversy but fails to explain why such deficiency does not act to prevent the court from taking original jurisdiction. The plaintiffs only “fear” that the obligations due them may be impaired by the School Finance Authority Act (Pub. Act 81—1221). To address those “fears” would be to merely render an advisory opinion. It is only when those fears become a reality that a declaratory judgment may properly be brought.