Court Opinion

ID: 9742172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:08:02.447634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:29.098879
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring; I agree with the plurality to the extent that it holds that the one-year statute of limitation contained in section 8 — 101 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8— 101 (West 1996)) applies to the causes of action at issue in this case. I also believe, like the plurality, that the policy considerations presented in this appeal are questions that are more appropriately left to our General Assembly. 188 Ill. 2d at 196. Nevertheless, I agree with Justice Heiple that plaintiffs “make a plausible case that the focus [in this appeal] should be on the type of the cause of action, not on the nature of the defendants.” See 188 Ill. 2d at 199 (Heiple, J., specially concurring). Therefore, I join in Justice Heiple’s special concurrence to the extent that “this is one of those instances where ‘the legislature intended to make the general act controlling’ ” and that section 8 — 101 of the Tort Immunity Act was designed to apply broadly to any possible claim against a local governmental entity and its employees. 188 Ill. 2d at 199 (Heiple, J., specially concurring), quoting Stone v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review, 151 Ill. 2d 257, 266 (1992). However, I do not join in, nor do I condone, Justice Heiple’s characterization of the dissent submitted in this matter by Justice McMorrow.