Court Opinion

ID: 9711277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:27:53.042585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.291158
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the reasoning and result reached by my colleagues. I believe we should adhere to our recent decision in Anderson v. Peters (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 182, 491 N.E.2d 768, which would mandate the decision of the trial court be affirmed. The majority has cavalierly reversed the decision in Anderson, which was relied on by the trial court in granting the defendant judgment in his favor in his motion for summary judgment. Although I grant that the majority has the power to reverse a prior decision of the Third District Appellate Court, the procedure does not represent good appellate practice. It seems to me reasonable appellate practice should require that different panels should adhere to prior decisions of other panels of the same district, particularly those of recent occurrence. Otherwise we would have, as we now have in this district, a rule of law which depends on the panel which hears the appeal, a situation which serves no useful purpose. The problem could be avoided easily by following the rules of reliance on precedents.