{
  "id": 5353452,
  "name": "Trustees of Schools of Township 42, for the Use of The Board of Education of School District No. 57, Appellee, vs. Gerald A. Schroeder et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trustees of Schools of Township 42 v. Schroeder",
  "decision_date": "1962-05-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 36966",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. 2d 289"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill.2d 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2796271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/23/0074-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.221137340429751e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7776293135236843
    },
    "sha256": "9a170fb8a11f5f236fe52b181d624d9b6550ea06daa6a32c7d52c9a531e4058f",
    "simhash": "1:e8cb8703487fa357",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:32.986200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Trustees of Schools of Township 42, for the Use of The Board of Education of School District No. 57, Appellee, vs. Gerald A. Schroeder et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice House\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe question presented by this appeal is whether a school district governed by article 7 of the School Code, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1959, chap. 122, pars. 7 \u2014 1 to 7 \u2014 23,) is prohibited from taking land by eminent domain within 40 rods of the owners\u2019 dwelling.\nThe issue was raised by a traverse to the petition on the theory that the property was exempt from condemnation. Review was sought on a previous appeal of this cause, but was denied on the ground that it is not permissible in an appeal from an order granting a new trial. (23 Ill.2d 74.) The cause is again brought here by the respondents following a judgment upon the verdict for $267,083.33.\nArticle 7 school districts (those having from 1000 to 500,000 inhabitants) are given the specific power to condemn by section 7 \u2014 17 without any distance limitation. Additionally, they are included in the general grant of eminent domain power to school districts in article 14 of the Code (section 14 \u2014 7,) again without restriction as to distance from the owner\u2019s dwelling.\nDespite the plain and unambiguous language used, respondents argue that the power of article 7 districts is qualified by section 7 \u2014 14 of the Code, which reads: \u201cThe board of education has all the powers of school directors as set forth in Article 6, is subject to the same limitations, and in addition thereto has the powers enumerated in the subsequent sections of this Article.\u201d This is a strained interpretation. Article 6 of the Code, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1959, chap. 122, pars. 6 \u2014 1 to 6 \u2014 62,) does not contain a separate grant of eminent domain power, limited or otherwise. Thus, article 7 districts are not dependent upon article 6 for eminent domain power.\nDistricts operating under article 6 (those having a population of fewer than 1000) are entirely dependent upon the general power contained in section 14 \u2014 7 which limits them, and only them, in the following language: \u201c* * * But no tract of land outside the limits of any incorporated city or village and within 40 rods of the dwelling of the owner of the land shall be taken by the board of directors, created in Article 6, without the owners consent; * * It seems obvious that if the General Assembly intended that the \u201c40 rods\u201d limitation should apply to article 7 districts, it would have so stated in section 14 \u2014 7 rather than use the oblique method suggested by respondents.\nThe legislative purpose in enacting section 7 \u2014 14 seems apparent. The specific powers of boards of school directors referred to in section 6 \u2014 33 are 29 in number, while those of boards of education following section 7 \u2014 14 total only 9. Many in article 6 are applicable to both types of district. The inclusion by reference of the article 6 powers in article 7 avoids needless repetition. We see no legislative intent in section 7 \u2014 14 that the specific provisions of the Code for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by article 7 school districts be curtailed by the limitation on article 6 districts, and hold that the \u201c40 rods\u201d restriction does not apply to article 7 districts.\nBy reason of our holding, it is unnecessary to consider the contention that the \u201c40 rods\u201d limitation does not apply where the entire tract, including the owner\u2019s dwelling, is taken.\nThe.judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice House"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter and Pecyna, Robert A. Sprecher, Edward W. Barrett, and Len Young Smith, all of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Albert J. Horrell, both of Chicago, (Thompson, Raymond, Mayer & Jenner, Horrell & Borde, Philip W. Tone, and William B. Davenport, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 36966\nTrustees of Schools of Township 42, for the Use of The Board of Education of School District No. 57, Appellee, vs. Gerald A. Schroeder et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed May 25,1962.\nRehearing denied September 27,1962.\nWalter and Pecyna, Robert A. Sprecher, Edward W. Barrett, and Len Young Smith, all of Chicago, for appellants.\nAlbert E. Jenner, Jr., and Albert J. Horrell, both of Chicago, (Thompson, Raymond, Mayer & Jenner, Horrell & Borde, Philip W. Tone, and William B. Davenport, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 299,
  "last_page_order": 302
}