{
  "id": 5378601,
  "name": "Albert Schuman et al., Appellees, vs. The Department of Revenue, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schuman v. Department of Revenue",
  "decision_date": "1966-09-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 39754",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. 2d 425"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "400 Ill. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5305848
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/400/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 Ill. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2536059
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/375/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 Ill. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2560826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/370/0578-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3500,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.8,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.662170294177528e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5284076407543451
    },
    "sha256": "e217bdeb036708902c76a2f2de07d31155d314465385fccff7797be161866ca4",
    "simhash": "1:f2743443a72fa81f",
    "word_count": 570
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:37.175519+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Albert Schuman et al., Appellees, vs. The Department of Revenue, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice House\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA complaint was filed by plaintiffs to review a final assessment by the Department of Revenue under the Retailers\u2019 Occupation and Municipal Retailers\u2019 Occupation Tax acts. The circuit court of Cook County affirmed the assessments in the sum of $26,987.48. The Department appealed directly to this court from a judgment order vacating the former judgment since the public revenue is involved.\nThere is no issue of fact. The record of proceedings filed by the Department included the final assessments. Each had a blank line for the signature of the Director of Revenue but neither was signed. The certificate of the Director attached to the record filed as the answer to the complaint certified that the copies of the various documents, including the final assessments, were true and correct copies of the records in his custody.\nThe sole ground for setting aside the judgment was that the signature of the Director (or someone acting on his behalf) was an essential jurisdictional requirement and absent such a signature the proceeding before the Department was a nullity.\nSection 4 of the Retailers\u2019 Occupation Tax Act, (111. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 120, par. 443,) provides that after a hearing, if requested by a taxpayer, a final assessment shall issue to him showing the amount found to be due. Section 1 of the Municipal Retailers Occupation Tax Act, (111. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 24, par. 8 \u2014 11\u20141) places its administration and enforcement in the Department of Revenue using similar procedure. Neither of the acts contains a requirement that the final assessments be signed by the Director or anyone else.\nFollowing hearings on the proposed assessment, final assessments were issued to the plaintiff giving notice of the fact that the assessments had been made and their nature and amounts. This was all that was required by the governing statutes.\nDepartment of Finance v. Goldberg, 370 Ill. 578, which held that a hearing officer\u2019s report alone was not a final administrative decision is not applicable here. The Director\u2019s certification of the records shows that the final assessments were in fact made and were not the mere report of the hearing officer. Such cases as People ex rel. Preisel v. New York Central Railroad Co. 375 Ill. 574, and People ex rel. Schmulbach v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 400 Ill. 303, are not persuasive. They pertained to cases where the town clerk failed to follow the statute which provided that a certificate of levy be filed with the county clerk.\nWe are of the opinion that the signature of the Director was unnecessary to make these \u201cfinal\u201d assessments final and that the judgment affirming the Department\u2019s final assessments must be reinstated. In view of this holding, it is unnecessary to consider the Department\u2019s contentions that plaintiffs failed to raise lack of signature as a defense and that the original judgment was conclusive against collateral attack even if the complaint be treated as filed under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice House"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, (Richard A. Michael, Phillip B. Robinson and A. Zola Groves, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Ralph R. Mickelson, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 39754.\nAlbert Schuman et al., Appellees, vs. The Department of Revenue, Appellant.\nOpinion filed Sept. 23, 1966.\nRehearing denied Oct. 27, 1966.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, (Richard A. Michael, Phillip B. Robinson and A. Zola Groves, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel,) for appellant.\nRalph R. Mickelson, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 429
}
