Court Opinion

ID: 9525644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:48.381932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:51.531534
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: The question presented by this case is whether a second lawsuit between the same parties and involving the same brokerage agreement is barred by application of the doctrine of res judicata. The trial judge thought it was and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed. (232 Ill. App. 3d 500.) This court reverses. The appellate court got it right. The majority opinion adequately sets forth the facts and adequately marshals the law. My only disagreement is with its conclusion. As to the application of the doctrine of res judicata, there is supporting precedent on both sides of the proposition before the court. See for instance, Charles E. Harding Co. v. Harding (1933), 352 Ill. 417, and Adams v. Pearson (1952), 411 Ill. 431, as well as other cases cited in both the majority opinion and the opinion below. Finality is an important goal in litigation. Piecemeal and seemingly endless litigation imposes a financial burden which people can ill afford. Voltaire, for instance, remarked that he was financially ruined but twice. Once when he lost a lawsuit. Once when he won one. For reasons of sound public policy and judicial economy, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the court.