{ "id": 3602301, "name": "HON. GEORGE BRIDGES et al., Appellees, v. THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Bridges v. State Board of Elections", "decision_date": "2006-09-26", "docket_number": "No. 102489", "first_page": "482", "last_page": "495", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "222 Ill. 2d 482" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "217 Ill. 2d 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3875226 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/217/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856936 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "233", "parenthetical": "holding that the special legislation clause may not be used to upset legislation enacted in compliance with the Judicial Article of the state constitution" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192395 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777556 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306-07" }, { "page": "307" }, { "page": "308" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436512 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562", "parenthetical": "holding that the SBE is part of the executive branch" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5462174 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5461780 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Ill. 2d 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 799384 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/203/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 Ill. 2d 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 229717 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/191/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ill. 2d 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2444474 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "178" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/212/0166-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 800, "char_count": 21210, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.10282356230035034 }, "sha256": "cf4a5862085c91f6602b329b06f9c7cc94816df47b8cf4c216200ab490dc6b0b", "simhash": "1:e5341221a38fdde4", "word_count": 3396 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:28.184369+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HON. GEORGE BRIDGES et al., Appellees, v. THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD\ndelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.\nChief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.\nOPINION\nOn April 14, 2006, the Sangamon County circuit court declared Public Act 94 \u2014 727, which amended the Circuit Courts Act (705 ILCS 35/1 et seq. (West 2004)), unconstitutional. The State Board of Elections and its members (SBE) filed a direct appeal. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)(1). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.\nBACKGROUND\nThe Nineteenth Judicial Circuit currently covers Lake County and McHenry County. See 705 ILCS 35/1 (West 2002). There are 16 judgeships in that circuit: seven at-large judgeships elected by voters in both counties (see 705 ILCS 35/2, 2h(f) (West 2002)), six resident judgeships elected by voters in Lake County, and three resident judgeships elected by voters in McHenry County (see 705 ILCS 35/2f \u2014 1(c) (West 2004)).\nThe Ninety-Third General Assembly sought to change the composition of the Nineteenth circuit. Senate Bill 75 split the Nineteenth circuit into the new Nineteenth circuit, covering Lake County, and the new Twenty-Second circuit, covering McHenry County. The bill also added five subcircuit judgeships in the new Nineteenth circuit and one at-large judgeship in the new Twenty-Second circuit. Thus, Senate Bill 75 left the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits with a total of 22 judges, 6 more than the current Nineteenth circuit.\nThe House offered an amendment to this bill. Like Senate Bill 75, the House amendment split the Nineteenth circuit into the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, and it created subcircuits in both. The House, however, deleted the portion of Senate Bill 75 adding the six judgeships, and instead directed 11 of the 16 judgeships in the current Nineteenth circuit to the new Nineteenth circuit and the remaining five judge-ships to the new Twenty-Second circuit. As amended, Senate Bill 75 passed the House and the Senate, Governor Blagojevich signed it, and it became Public Act 93 \u2014 541 on August 18, 2003.\nWhile Senate Bill 75 was pending, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) submitted fiscal and judicial notes regarding the House amendment. The notes read, in part: \u201cCurrently, the 19th Circuit has seven at-large judges. A total of 12 at-large circuit judges would be elected in the new 19th and 22nd Circuits, a net increase in five judges.\u201d The AOIC\u2019s notes were based upon its reading of section 2 of the Circuit Courts Act, which ties the number of at-large judgeships in a circuit to the population of the circuit: circuits other than Cook County with a population of more than 475,000 have eight at-large judgeships; circuits other than Cook County with a population of more than 270,000 have four at-large judgeships. 705 ILCS 35/2 (West 2004). The new Nineteenth circuit fell into the first category, and the new Twenty-Second circuit fell into the second category. Because Public Act 93 \u2014 541 allocated five of the current Nineteenth circuit\u2019s seven at-large judgeships to the new Nineteenth circuit, the AOIC advised that that circuit was entitled to three additional at-large judge-ships. Because the Act allocated the other two at-large judgeships to the new Twenty-Second circuit, the AOIC advised that that circuit was entitled to two additional at-large judgeships.\nOn June 13, 2005, the SBE announced these five additional at-large judgeships would appear on the March 2006 primary election ballot. The new Nineteenth circuit judgeships were designated \u201cAdditional Judgeships A, B and C,\u201d and the new Twenty-Second circuit judgeships were designated as \u201cAdditional Judgeships A and B.\u201d On December 5, 2005, the SBE then posted a notice entitled \u201cJUDICIAL OFFICES THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE MARCH 21, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT\u201d on its website. The notice listed various vacancies, including the additional judgeships in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, but stated:\n\u201cThe Board has received information from the Speaker of the Illinois House and the President of the Illinois Senate that a bill will be called in January which would eliminate the full circuit additional judgeships in the newly created 19th and 22nd circuits. The Board will accept nomination papers during the period of December 12-19, 2005 for these judgeships if candidates choose to file, but please note that if such legislation is enacted by January 19, 2006, the Board will not certify the judgeships for the March 21, 2006 primary election ballot. Please note that if the legislation is enacted subsequent to the SBE certification date, the Board will amend the certification to remove those judgeships.\u201d\nThe General Assembly considered Senate Bill 1681, which addressed those additional judgeships, during the 2005 fall veto session. This bill failed to receive the supermajority required for it to become effective immediately, so the House Speaker moved the bill to another reading and later reconsideration. Because this bill was not enacted by January 19, 2006, the SBE certified the additional judgeships to appear on the March 2006 primary election ballot. Weeks later, Senate Bill 1681 passed the House and the Senate. Governor Blagojevich signed it, and it became Public Act 94 \u2014 727 on February 14, 2006, more than a month before the primary election.\nPublic Act 94 \u2014 727 provided that the number of at-large judgeships in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits shall be the number set forth in Public Act 93 \u2014 541 \u2014 five in the new Nineteenth circuit and two in the new Twenty-Second circuit \u2014 plus the judgeships which the SBE had certified as Additional Judgeship A in the Nineteenth circuit and Additional Judgeship A in the Twenty-Second circuit. See Public Act 94 \u2014 727, eff. February 14, 2006 (adding 705 ILCS 35/2f \u2014 l(b \u2014 5)). Public Act 94 \u2014 727 also amended section 2 of the Circuit Courts Act: \u201c[Section 2] shall not apply to the determination of the number of circuit judgeships in the 19th and 22nd judicial circuits.\u201d Public Act 94 \u2014 727, eff. February 14, 2006 (amending 705 ILCS 35/2).\nThe next day, February 15, 2006, the candidates for the new judgeships filed a complaint against the SBE, its members, the Lake County clerk, and the McHenry County clerk in the Sangamon County circuit court. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 was unconstitutional, an injunction preventing the SBE from decertifying the five additional judgeships, and an order commanding the county clerks to count the primary election votes for these judgeships. On February 17, 2006, the trial court entered an order prohibiting the SBE from decertifying candidates for the five additional judgeships. The SBE filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.\nAfter a hearing on these motions, the trial court asked the parties to submit draft orders. On April 14, 2006, the trial court signed the order submitted by the plaintiffs, denying the SBE\u2019s motion, and granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motion. This order stated that Public Act 93\u2014 541, coupled with section 2 of the Circuit Courts Act, created five new at-large judgeships \u2014 three for the new Nineteenth circuit and two for the new Twenty-Second circuit. The order then summarily concluded, without any legal analysis, that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 violated article VI, sections 12(a), 12(c), and 12(e), of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a7\u00a7 12(a), (c), (e)); article II, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, \u00a7 1); article iy section 13, of the Illinois Constitution (111. Const. 1970, art. iy \u00a7 13); and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 2). The order finally stated that because Public Act 94 \u2014 727 was not enacted until after the SBE had certified the candidates for the March 2006 primary election, the SBE was estopped from removing their names or the offices they seek from the November 2006 general election ballot.\nThe SBE appealed the trial court\u2019s order directly to this court. We allowed the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for an expedited briefing and hearing schedule.\nANALYSIS\nAll statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality. People v. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d 166, 178 (2004), citing People v. Maness, 191 Ill. 2d 478, 483 (2000). To overcome this presumption, a party challenging a statute must clearly establish that it violates the constitution. People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264, 290 (2003). This court will affirm a statute\u2019s constitutionality if the statute is reasonably capable of such an interpretation. See People v. Einoder, 209 Ill. 2d 443, 450 (2004). Our review proceeds de novo. Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520, 536 (2004).\nThough the constitutionality of Public Act 94 \u2014 727 is before us, the SBE initially addresses Public Act 93\u2014 541. The SBE contends that Public Act 93 \u2014 541 did not create five additional judgeships for the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, and Public Act 94 \u2014 727 necessarily passes constitutional muster because it merely clarified the legislature\u2019s intent.\nThe plaintiffs respond that Public Act 93 \u2014 541 did create five additional judgeships, albeit indirectly. According to the plaintiffs, Public Act 93 \u2014 541 did not place a ceiling on the number of at-large judges in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, but section 2 of the Circuit Courts Act did provide a floor. Section 2 established the minimum number of at-large judgeships for each circuit, based on population. The plaintiffs argue that when Public Act 93 \u2014 541 allocated the seven at-large judgeships in the current Nineteenth circuit to the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, it also dropped the new circuits below the number of at-large judgeships mandated by section 2. The new circuits were, consequently, entitled to more judgeships.\nWe need not decide this disagreement, because even if Public Act 93 \u2014 541 created additional judgeships, Public Act 94 \u2014 727 clearly eliminated them, and clearly resolved any confusion about the effect of section 2 on the new circuits. Public Act 94 \u2014 727 provided that the number of at-large judgeships in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits shall be the number assigned to those circuits by Public Act 93 \u2014 541 \u2014 five and two, respectively \u2014 plus one additional at-large judgeship in each circuit. Public Act 94 \u2014 727, eff. February 14, 2006 (adding 705 ILCS 35/2f \u2014 l(b \u2014 5)). The Act also amended section 2 to provide that it \u201cshall not apply to the determination of the number of circuit judgeships in the 19th and 22nd judicial circuits.\u201d Public Act 94 \u2014 727, eff. February 14, 2006 (amending 705 ILCS 35/2).\nThe General Assembly apparently felt that the SBE had misinterpreted Public Act 93 \u2014 541, and Public Act 94 \u2014 727 clarified the legislature\u2019s intent. Our inquiry turns to whether the legislature could correct the SBE without violating the Illinois Constitution.\nThe plaintiffs argue that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, \u00a7 1; see also Walker v. State Board of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 543, 562 (1976) (holding that the SBE is part of the executive branch). Public Act 94 \u2014 727, the plaintiffs claim, is \u201can attack\u201d on the SBE. The Election Code provides that \u201cthe State Board of Elections shall determine whether the General Assembly has created new judgeships which are to be filled at the next general election\u201d (10 ILCS 5/25 \u2014 3(b)(4) (West 2004)), and the plaintiffs assert that the SBE made this determination twice when it certified the plaintiffs as candidates for the additional judgeships. According to the plaintiffs, the legislature cannot certify or decertify candidates, and cannot determine who is on or off the ballot.\nThe plaintiffs fail to grasp that, while the SBE has the authority to determine whether a statute created new judgeships, the General Assembly has the authority to create such a statute in the first instance. Article VI, section 7(b), of the Illinois Constitution provides: \u201cEach Judicial Circuit shall have one Circuit Court with such number of Circuit Judges as provided by law.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a7 7(b). The General Assembly has plenary power to determine the number of circuit judges; creating additional judgeships is \u201can act exclusively within the province of the legislature pursuant to our constitution.\u201d McDunn v. Williams, 156 Ill. 2d 288, 306-07 (1993). Any infringement on this power not only violates the clear language of article VI, section 7, but also threatens the separation of powers. McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 307; see generally People v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 465, 473 (1988). And because only the legislature may appropriate revenues for state expenditures, there are no funds available to pay for judgeships that the legislature did not create. McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 308, citing Ill. Const. 1970, art. VIII, \u00a7 2(b).\nThe plaintiffs concede that the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to determine the number of judges in each circuit, but insists the General Assembly established this number with finality in section 2. Apparently, the plaintiffs do not believe that plenary power to determine the number of judges includes the power to reconsider because they contend that the General Assembly may not eliminate judgeships created by prior legislation. The plaintiffs rely on article VI, section 12(a), of the Illinois Constitution:\n\u201cSupreme, Appellate and Circuit Judges shall be nominated at primary elections or by petition. Judges shall be elected at general or judicial elections as the General Assembly shall provide by law. A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions. The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the requirements for petitions.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a7 12(a).\nAs the SBE correctly observes, a candidate\u2019s right to seek ballot access for a particular judgeship assumes that the judgeship exists. Here, the General Assembly eliminated three of the additional judgeships certified by the SBE, and section 12(a) provides no right to appear on the ballot to fill nonexistent judgeships. Further, article VI, section 12(e), of the Constitution provides that the legislature may reduce the number of judges, provided it does not prejudice the right of any judge to seek retention. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a7 12(e) (\u201cA reduction shall become effective when a vacancy occurs in the affected unit\u201d); see also Hirschfield v. Barrett, 40 Ill. 2d 224 (1968). Public Act 94 \u2014 727 eliminated three judge-ships, none of which, of course, were occupied. The legislature could act without affecting any judge\u2019s right to seek retention. Sections 7(b) and 12(e) of article VI, by their express terms, permit this legislative action.\nThe plaintiffs assert that this result would establish a dangerous precedent because the legislature then could effectively control who holds office. According to the plaintiffs, if the legislature has the power to abolish judgeships that have been twice certified by the SBE, then it has seized the power to choose candidates, and therefore judges. The plaintiffs again ignore the fact that it is the General Assembly, not the SBE, which decides to create judgeships. The SBE announced five additional judgeships in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits, and the legislature eliminated them, prior to any 2006 election.\nThe plaintiffs argue that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 violates both the special legislation clause (111. Const. 1970, art. iy \u00a7 13) and the equal protection clause (111. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 2) of our state constitution. The plaintiffs essentially contend that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 either treats citizens in other circuits with similar populations better than citizens in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits or treats citizens in the new Nineteenth and Twenty-Second circuits worse than citizens in other circuits with similar populations. The new Nineteenth circuit, state the plaintiffs, is in the same population classification as the Twelfth and the Eighteenth circuits. Under section 2 of the Act, all such circuits are entitled to eight at-large judges. The Twelfth and Eighteenth circuits each have eight at-large judges; pursuant to Public Act 94 \u2014 727, the new Nineteenth circuit would have only five at-large judges. The Twenty-Second circuit is in the same population classification as the Third and the Seventeenth circuits. Under section 2, all such circuits are entitled to four at-large judges; pursuant to Public Act 94 \u2014 727, the new Twenty-Second circuit has only two. According to the plaintiffs, Lake County and McHenry County rank number one and three respectively in new filings per judge for 2004; these are the third and fourth fastest growing counties in the state. The new circuits need more judges.\nThe General Assembly has plenary power to determine the number of judges in each circuit. It exercised this power more than 50 years ago when it enacted the precursor to section 2 and put in place a default population rule. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, ch. 37, par. 72.2. Since 1975, the parameters of the default rule have remained the same, despite obvious growth in certain circuits. Compare Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 72.2 with 705 ILCS 35/2 (West 2004). The legislature has freely-departed from the default rule with impunity, adding judgeships in subsequent acts as the need for them arose and the resources to fund them appeared. See, e.g., 705 ILCS 35/2c, 2d, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j (West 2004). Likewise, section 2 and its default rule was amended by Public Act 94 \u2014 727. The legislature chose to determine the number of circuit judges in a manner besides population; this was the legislature\u2019s prerogative, and it was not limited by either the special legislation clause or the equal protection clause. See Hirschfield, 40 Ill. 2d at 233 (holding that the special legislation clause may not be used to upset legislation enacted in compliance with the Judicial Article of the state constitution). The plaintiffs\u2019 argument fails.\nThe plaintiffs finally argue that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 violates the due process clause of our state constitution. See 111. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a7 2. According to the plaintiffs, the legislature unconstitutionally changed the rules in the middle of the game. That is, the plaintiffs relied on the SBE\u2019s certification of the additional judgeships to their detriment, incurring obligations, conducting their campaigns, and somehow obtaining a vested interest in additional judgeships that the legislature never intended to create.\nThe plaintiffs had no such vested interest, merely \u201cunilateral expectations\u201d in the face of strong indications that the additional judgeships would be subject to further legislative action. See Big Sky Excavating, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 217 Ill. 2d 221, 242 (2005). The due process clause does not protect such expectations. Again, the plaintiffs\u2019 argument fails. We note that our conclusion here is limited to the facts of this case. We express no opinion whether our conclusion would have been different if the legislature had failed to act before the March 2006 primary election.\nBecause we conclude that the trial court erred in declaring Public Act 94 \u2014 727 unconstitutional, we need not address the SBE\u2019s severability argument.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons that we have stated, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.\nReversed; mandate issued forthwith.\nThe candidates, and plaintiffs, are Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge George Bridges, Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge Valerie Ceckowski, Nineteenth Circuit McHenry County Resident Judge Michael Chmiel, Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge Wallace Dunn, Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge Gordon Graham, Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge John Phillips, Nineteenth Circuit Associate Judge Theodore Potkonjak, and Stephen Haugh.\nThe plaintiffs acknowledge that Public Act 94 \u2014 727 added an at-large judgeship in the new Nineteenth circuit and an at-large judgeship in the Twenty-Second circuit. Thus, the plaintiffs contend that the actual number of judgeships in dispute is three. The plaintiffs do not mention that before Public Act 94 \u2014 727 became law, Public Act 93 \u2014 1102 also added a subcircuit judgeship in the Twenty-Second circuit. See Pub. Act 93 \u2014 1102, eff. April 7, 2005 (amending 705 ILCS 35/2f \u2014 5(a)).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, of counsel), for appellants.", "Patrick A. Salvi, of Salvi Schostok & Pritchard, PC., of Waukegan, Richard A. Cowen, of Stahl Cowen Crowley, L.L.C., of Chicago, and Frederick P Velde and Tim Bertschy, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Springfield, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 102489.\nHON. GEORGE BRIDGES et al., Appellees, v. THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed September 26, 2006.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, of counsel), for appellants.\nPatrick A. Salvi, of Salvi Schostok & Pritchard, PC., of Waukegan, Richard A. Cowen, of Stahl Cowen Crowley, L.L.C., of Chicago, and Frederick P Velde and Tim Bertschy, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Springfield, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0482-01", "first_page_order": 492, "last_page_order": 505 }