Perry v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation
Supreme Court of Illinois
May 24, 2018, Opinion Filed
Docket Nos. 122349, 122411 cons.
[*P1] [**1018] [****850] In separate cases, both plaintiff-appellants, (1) Christopher J. Perry and Perry [****851] [**1019] & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012)) seeking the disclosure of certain information from the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (Department). After the circuit court denied in part and granted in part Perry's motion for summary judgment, section 2105-117 of the Department of Professional Regulation Law took effect, which, if applicable, would exempt the type of information sought by Perry from disclosure. Pub. Act 99-227 (eff. Aug. 3, 2015) (adding 20 ILCS 2105/2105-117). Both Perry and the Department moved for reconsideration, and the circuit court applied section 2105-117 to the action, concluding that the information Perry sought was exempt from disclosure. The circuit court denied Perry's motion to reconsider, and the appellate court affirmed. Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2017 IL App (1st) 161780, ¶ 48, 413 Ill. Dec. 329, 77 N.E.3d 1136.
[*P2] During the pendency of the Institute's lawsuit in the circuit [***2] court, Public Act 98-911 became effective on January 1, 2015, adding section 4-24 to the Barber, Cosmetology, Esthetics, Hair Braiding, and Nail Technology Act of 1985 (Barber Act), which, if applicable, would exempt the type of information sought by the Institute from disclosure. Pub Act. 98-911 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015) (adding 225 ILCS 410/4-24). After the circuit court granted the Institute's motion for summary judgment and denied the Department's motion for summary judgment, concluding in part that section 4-24 could not be applied to the Institute's action, the Department appealed. The appellate court reversed. Institute for Justice v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2017 IL App (1st) 162141-U, ¶ 29.
[*P3] We allowed Perry's and the Institute's petitions for leave to appeal (Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017)), which have been consolidated to determine whether section 2105-117 and section 4-24 are to apply to Perry's and the Institute's pending causes of actions, respectively. We allowed the following parties to file amicus curiae briefs: the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, the Better Government Association, the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the Citizen Advocacy Center, and the Illinois Press Association; the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; and the Illinois Policy Institute and Edgar County Watchdogs. [***3] Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 IL 122349 *; 106 N.E.3d 1016 **; 2018 Ill. LEXIS 439 ***; 423 Ill. Dec. 848 ****
CHRISTOPHER J. PERRY et al., Appellants, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee.—INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee.
Prior History: Inst. for Justice v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation, 2017 IL App (1st) 162141-U, 2017 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 781 (Apr. 14, 2017)Perry v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation, 2017 IL App (1st) 161780, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 257, 413 Ill. Dec. 329, 77 N.E.3d 1136 (Apr. 14, 2017)
Disposition: No. 122349, Reversed. No. 122411, Reversed and remanded with directions.
retroactive, circuit court, disclosure, temporal, Confidentiality, sections, exempt, legislative intent, rights, Regulation, cases, vested right, cause of action, effective date, public record, attorney's fees, effective, Dictionary, licensee, licenses, courts, substantial change, public body, prescribed, prevailing, documents, redacted, records, summary judgment motion, reconsideration motion
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Administrative Law, Governmental Information, Freedom of Information, Freedom of Information, Defenses & Exemptions From Public Disclosure, Statutory Exemptions, Effect & Operation, Amendments, Retrospective Operation, Prospective Operation, Procedural ramifications of a substantive amendment to a statute do not make the amendment procedural. "Procedural" is defined as "of or relating to procedure <~ details, ; esp : of or relating to the procedure used by courts or other bodies (as governmental agencies) in the administration of substantive law (~ due process)"; "procedure" is defined as "an established way of conducting business (as of a deliberative body): as *** (2) : the established manner of conducting judicial business and litigation including pleading, evidence, and practice"; and "substantive law" is defined as "a branch of law that prescribes the rights, duties, and obligations of persons to one another as to their conduct or property and that determines when a cause of action for damages or other relief has arisen." Another dictionary defines "procedural law" as "the rules that prescribe the steps for having a right or duty judicially enforced, as opposed to the law that defines the specific rights or duties themselves." "Substantive law" is in turn defined as "the part of the law that creates, defines, and regulates the rights, duties, and powers of the parties.", State & Territorial Governments, Licenses