Court Opinion

ID: 9539895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:26.582658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:27.151995
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, also specially concurring: Although I agree with the majority that the respondent judge erred, I do not agree that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the order. In O’Brien v. People (1905), 216 Ill. 354, the court said: “Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties to a suit. If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. [Citations.] Jursidiction of the particular matter does not mean simple jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court, but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. [Citations.] Whether a complaint does or does not state a cause of action is, so far as concerns the question of jurisdiction, of no importance, for if it states a case belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, then jurisdiction attaches and the court has power to decide, whether the pleading is good or bad. [Citations.] Jurisdiction does not depend upon the rightfulness of the decision. It is not lost because of an erroneous decision, however erroneous that decision may be. [Citations.]” 216 Ill. 354, 363-64. When the cause was remanded and the mandate issued, the circuit court was vested with jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with the mandate. That jurisdiction empowered it to make the wrong, as well as the right, decision. In failing to follow the mandate it erred. It erred in the course of performing a discretionary act and mandamus is, therefore, not an appropriate remedy. The proper method to correct its action is by supervisory order. See People ex rel. Carey v. Strayhorn (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 85.