Court Opinion

ID: 9730460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:12:57.571091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.640889
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, specially concurring: I agree Whitmer v. Industrial Comm’n (1989), 187 Ill. App. 3d 409, 549 N.E.2d 353, is controlling in this case. The facts are indistinguishable. I am troubled by the trend of cases which suggests minor deviations from the appeal procedure result in what is characterized as lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It follows from this characterization that any action thereafter is void and the invalidity can be raised at any time. It seems to me that such a result bears no relationship to the objects and goals of the appeal procedure. Rather than liberally construing the appeal procedure, we are establishing rigid rules which would make those associated with common law pleadings appear liberal. In the context of the general definition of jurisdiction, namely the power to hear a particular controversy between parties who are subject to the authority of the court, deficiencies in the appeal procedure ought not to result in lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Such requirements should be regarded as conditions precedent in bringing the controversy to the court or should be regarded as relating to jurisdiction of the parties. In either event the deficiencies could be waived by the parties and would be deemed so waived unless raised at the earliest point in the proceeding. In the instant proceeding the praecipe for summons was not filed. Yet someone requested the issuance of the summons because it is undisputed summonses were served and the parties appropriately notified. No prejudice is shown. Neither are any benefits ascribed from the procedure justifying the consequences of deviation therefrom. It seems to me that we might do well to reconsider the trend of cases thereby ameliorating the results caused by inflexible adherence to procedural form over substance.