{ "id": 3076045, "name": "CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTEE PAYNE, JR., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Board of Education v. Payne", "decision_date": "1981-12-22", "docket_number": "No. 80-1831", "first_page": "741", "last_page": "750", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 741" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811365 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 N.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 3d 861", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5305125 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/35/0861-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.E.2d 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 2d 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5220984 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/29/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "419 N.E.2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. App. 3d 993", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3125424 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "998" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/94/0993-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12133598 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "411-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Cal. Rptr. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "461 P.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "386" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Cal. 3d 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1183290 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "229" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/1/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 Cal. Rptr. 830", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Cal. App. 3d 920", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 6040749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/50/0920-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. 2d 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.E.2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Ill. App. 2d 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5189521 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/19/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 2d 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5262793 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/35/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.E.2d 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. App. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5259964 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/36/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.E.2d 438", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2642642 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 N.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. App. 3d 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3108969 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/97/0530-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 933, "char_count": 21067, "ocr_confidence": 0.91, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.464269886413152e-07, "percentile": 0.8058535459017109 }, "sha256": "ef521e37254afb46035db5d6a0aa160954a5ce67ac59eb57e0bc37dac018e4a8", "simhash": "1:3f0670022185e454", "word_count": 3461 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:42.734695+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTEE PAYNE, JR., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE DOWNING\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Chicago Board of Education (Board) sought the dismissal for cause of tenured elementary school teacher Artee Payne, Jr. (Payne), pursuant to section 34 \u2014 85 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 85). After an administrative hearing, an impartial hearing officer ruled that the Board\u2019s dismissal of Payne was improper. On judicial review instituted by the Board, the circuit court of Cook County reversed the hearing officer\u2019s decision. The central question raised on Payne\u2019s appeal from the circuit court\u2019s ruling is whether the court erred in finding that the hearing officer\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to law.\nOn August 30, 1978, the general superintendent of schools instituted proceedings with the Board against Payne, charging him with conduct unbecoming a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools. This charge contained four itemized specifications, paraphrased as follows: (1) on or about February 6,1976, Payne knowingly had in his possession a quantity of marijuana; (2) on or about January 19, 1978, Payne knowingly had in his possession a quantity of marijuana; (3) on or about the same date, Payne knowingly had in his possession a controlled substance; and (4) such conduct was irremediable. The Board adopted the superintendent\u2019s charge and specifications on the same date, and a hearing officer was appointed.\nHearings proceeded before that officer on four separate days. Chicago policeman Thomas Skol related that he had stopped Payne for a traffic violation at about 5 p.m. on February 6,1976. Skol asked Payne for his driver\u2019s license. As Payne was searching his pockets for the license, he pulled out a clear plastic bag containing a relatively small amount of a crushed green substance. Skol advised Payne of his rights. At some point during the ensuing conversation, Payne admitted that the substance was marijuana and was arrested. Skol recalled that Payne pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in return for a sentence of probation. Skol did not believe that Payne was performing any duties related to education at the time of the arrest.\nSergeant Emmett Boyd of the Chicago Police Department testified that he executed a search warrant on Payne\u2019s residence, a motel room, on January 19,1978. Boyd searched Payne and found a white envelope containing crushed green plant and a small vial containing white powder. Payne was arrested.\nBaymond Principe, a director of the Bureau of Teacher Personnel for the Board, stated that Payne holds a teaching certificate which entitles him to teach intermediate and upper grade school children. The age range of such children was 10-13 years. Principe learned of Payne\u2019s entanglement with the police when his superior, Dr. Nina Jones, informed him about a newspaper article on Payne\u2019s 1978 arrest. He contacted Payne and subsequently held a conference with him, where Payne denied the charge contained in the article and advised Principe that his attorney had told him to make no further statements.\nOn cross-examination, Principe related that he had no opportunity to view Payne at work in the classroom. No teacher evaluations of Payne indicated that he was under the influence of drugs while at school. The reports stated only that Payne was a good teacher. No complaints related to the charges against Payne had ever come to Principe\u2019s attention. He was unaware of any of Payne\u2019s students becoming involved with drugs as a result of Payne having been their teacher.\nDr. Nina Jones, assistant superintendent of personnel for the Board, had never met Payne. He first came to her attention when \u201csomeone called [her] and indicated that a teacher * * * had been arrested on a narcotics charge.\u201d She discussed the case with Principe and then made a report to the general superintendent.\nDr. Jones stated that she believed illegal conduct on the part of a teacher would have a deleterious effect on the school system as a whole and would have an impact upon the particular school involved. Dr. Jones did not receive any complaints from any particular person concerning Payne. She noted that Payne\u2019s evaluations were satisfactory.\nAfter presenting Dr. Jones\u2019 testimony, the Board rested. Payne called Jerry Hunter, one of his fellow teachers. Hunter related that Payne\u2019s general reputation among his peers was that of a strong disciplinarian and a good teacher. He had not heard any bad reports about Payne\u2019s performance as a teacher. Hunter knew nothing about any association Payne may have had with drugs. He heard no complaints from parents or teachers concerning that matter. He was aware of the newspaper articles on Payne\u2019s arrest.\nOn cross-examination, Hunter noted that the articles produced a lot of discussion among teachers at the school. There was also some conversation about them among students. Hunter related that some teachers and students objected to Payne\u2019s removal from the school.\nFreddie McGee, another of Payne\u2019s fellow teachers, stated that Payne had a good reputation among teachers, students, and parents. McGee knew of no involvement of Payne with drugs, nor of any students being influenced with drugs by Payne. The newspaper articles were the subject of general discussion among students and teachers. McGee agreed that information that a teacher was in possession of illegal substances would have a detrimental effect on the school system.\nJack Mitchell, a district superintendent for the Board, knew of no reports outside of the newspaper articles which connected Payne to drugs. The articles generated a lot of discussion among staff personnel at his office. He noted some parents were distressed that Payne was removed from his position at the school.\nPayne testified on his own behalf. At the time of the hearing, he was in his 13th year as a teacher. Prior to that, he had been a fingerprint technician with the Chicago Police Department. At the school, Payne had a reputation as a disciplinarian. He was assigned the \u201cproblem kids,\u201d that is, children who were involved with gangs or were otherwise in trouble with authority. Payne presented himself to the students as a father or big brother. His relationship with the parents was very good.\nPayne discussed the circumstances of his 1976 arrest. He was stopped by Officer Skol. After his driver\u2019s license was produced, Skol searched his car. In the back seat, Payne carried a drug abuse kit which he had been using for instruction in school. From the kit, Skol took a plastic bag, accused Payne of possessing marijuana, and arrested him. Payne went to court and pleaded guilty in return for a sentence of probation because the judge told him that upon completion of the probation term there would be no conviction on his record. Payne\u2019s retained attorney was not present at the time he pleaded guilty.\nPayne also stated that Sergeant Boyd arrested him in 1978. Payne denied that he possessed marijuana or cocaine at that time.\nThe hearing officer eventually ruled that the Board did not sustain its burden of proof with respect to the specifications concerning the 1978 arrest (a finding of factual insufficiency in the Board\u2019s case). He further ruled that although Payne had pleaded guilty to the 1976 possession of marijuana charge, there was no evidence to show how this conviction had any effect upon Payne\u2019s duties as a teacher, upon the students, or upon his fellow teachers (a finding of legal insufficiency in the Board\u2019s case). The officer finally ruled that the 1976 occurrence was \u201cnot irremediable in and of itself.\u201d Consequently, he held Payne\u2019s dismissal improper.\nThe Board appealed this decision to the circuit court. The parties presented arguments, after which the court made the following oral findings:\n\u201cI find the decision of the hearing officer is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In the Court\u2019s opinion, the sole conviction on the \u201976 offense of possession of marijuana is ample justification for discharging an otherwise qualified teacher. The evidence is clear that the students and the particular school are well aware of what had transpired, and in the Court\u2019s opinion, has an adverse impact on the operation of the school system and his ability to teach and relate with the students. * * * I can\u2019t in good conscience * * * say that a teacher who has been arrested with possession of marijuana is a fit teacher to teach the children of our community.\u201d\nI\nPayne\u2019s argument on appeal essentially is that the circuit court erred in ordering his dismissal based upon its finding that the hearing officer\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was contrary to law. Examination of the court\u2019s just-recited oral findings supporting its decision shows that the activities of Payne in February 1976 served as the sole basis for its approval of his dismissal by the Board. Thus, we focus upon the evidence regarding that occurrence.\nA.\nWe first note that there is no real factual dispute in this case regarding the 1976 possession of marijuana charge against Payne. He admitted his guilt of this crime in court by pleading guilty, and he received a sentence of probation therefor. On appeal, Payne\u2019s attorney attempted to lessen the impact of that guilty plea by arguing, in what amounts to a collateral attack on the judgment, that Payne was not represented by an attorney at the time of the plea, and that Payne had only entered the plea in order to receive the sentence of probation.\nWe reject this reasoning. There is no question in our minds that Payne did in fact plead guilty to the 1976 possession charge or that he made this plea of his free will. Therefore, we have no alternative but to find that the Board has proved by a preponderance of the evidence, as was required (see Board of Education v. Adelman (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 530, 532, 423 N.E.2d 254), that Payne did indeed possess a small quantity of marijuana in February 1976. It remains for our determination whether this fact alone constitutes a sufficient basis for Payne\u2019s dismissal by the Board.\nB.\nNo tenured school teacher may be removed from employment except for cause. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 85.) The School Code is generally vague as to what constitutes cause for removal, although it does provide that the Board may dismiss a teacher for \u201cincompetency, cruelty, negligence, immorality or other sufficient cause and * * * whenever, in its opinion, the interests of the schools require it * * (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 22.4.) The right to determine what constitutes sufficient cause lies in the first instance with the Board, with the best interests of the schools as the \u201cguiding star.\u201d (See Morelli v. Board of Education (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 722, 729, 356 N.E.2d 438; McLain v. Board of Education (1962), 36 Ill. App. 2d 143, 147, 183 N.E.2d 7; Robinson v. Community Unit School District No. 7 (1962), 35 Ill. App. 2d 325, 330-31, 182 N.E.2d 770.) \u201cCause\u201d has been described as some substantial shortcoming which renders continuance in employment in some way detrimental to discipline and effectiveness of service; something which the law and sound public opinion recognizes as a good reason for the individual to no longer occupy his position. (Jepsen v. Board of Education (1958), 19 Ill. App. 2d 204, 207, 153 N.E.2d 417, appeal denied (1959), 15 Ill. 2d 613.) There must be present a logical nexus between the actions alleged as cause for dismissal and the individual\u2019s fitness to perform as a teacher. See Board of Trustees v. Judge (1975), 50 Cal. App. 3d 920, 123 Cal. Rptr. 830.\nWe have found no Illinois cases addressing the question of whether a teacher\u2019s possession of a small quantity of marijuana outside of the school environment is sufficient cause to warrant his dismissal. Thus, we are faced with a question of first impression. We note that the California courts have established a test to facilitate the determination of whether a logical nexus exists between a teacher\u2019s alleged activity and his fitness to teach. In Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969), 1 Cal. 3d 214, 229, 461 P.2d 375, 386, 82 Cal. Rptr. 175, 186, the California Supreme Court set forth the following list of factors to be weighed in making this decision: (1) the likelihood of an adverse effect from the conduct upon students and other teachers, (2) the degree of adverse effect expected, (3) the type of teaching certificate held by the teacher, (4) the probability that the conduct will recur, (5) the proximity in time of the conduct to the commencement of dismissal proceedings, and (6) the presence or absence of any factors in mitigation. We will apply these factors to the evidence of this case to assist us in deciding whether Payne\u2019s 1976 conduct constitutes cause for his dismissal.\nThere is evidence in this case that a teacher\u2019s possession of even a small quantity of marijuana would, once it became a matter of general knowledge, have a major adverse impact upon that teacher\u2019s students and fellow teachers. Dr. Nina Jones, who qualified as an expert by virtue of her 30 years service to the Board, testified to the Board\u2019s perception of the role of a teacher in the Chicago school system. Dr. Jones stated that a teacher serves as the leader of the instructional program in his classroom, as a role model for his students who often emulate his behavior, and as a person who instills basic values of American society and good citizenship in his students. Dr. Jones further stated that publication of information that a teacher engaged in illegal conduct would have a deleterious effect on the school system as a whole, as well as on the particular school.\nWe are aware of the special position occupied by a teacher in our society. As a consequence of that elevated stature, a teacher\u2019s actions are subject to much greater scrutiny than that given to the activities of the average person. We do not doubt that knowledge of a teacher\u2019s involvement in illegalities such as possession of marijuana would have a major deleterious effect upon the school system and would greatly impede that individual\u2019s ability to adequately fulfill his role as perceived by the Board. This conclusion is especially true where, as here, the teacher holds a certificate to educate children ages 10 to 13 who are, according to testimony in this case, very impressionable. We can only find that general awareness of possession of marijuana by a teacher in Payne\u2019s position directly and adversely affects that individual\u2019s ability to effectively perform as a teacher.\nAs well, the record shows that Payne\u2019s conduct in 1976 was not an isolated occurrence. There is evidence that Payne also possessed marijuana as well as cocaine in January 1978. While we do not focus upon that incident in resolving this appeal, we find that it does demonstrate the likelihood that Payne\u2019s illegal actions could recur.\nAdditionally, we note that the Board commenced informal proceedings against Payne upon the newspapers\u2019 publication of the fact of Payne\u2019s 1976 conduct in January 1978. Consequently, we do not find any attenuation of the impact of that action by the mere passage of a nearly two-year period between the initial occurrence and the general awareness of that incident. Further, we find an aggravating circumstance in this case which gives weight to the Board\u2019s position. Payne testified that he was assigned to the \u201cproblem kids,\u201d those children who have already shown a degree of disrespect for authority. It is beyond argument that Payne\u2019s involvement with illegal drugs would hinder the ability of the schools to enlighten these children as to proper behavior in our society.\nIn sum, we believe that a clear nexus has been shown in this record between Payne\u2019s conduct and his fitness to teach. We must conclude that Payne\u2019s possession of marijuana, coupled with the circumstances in which he functioned, constitutes sufficient cause for the Board to remove Payne from his position as a teacher. We cannot accept Payne\u2019s contention that his conduct was not unbecoming his status and position.\nC.\nDespite this conclusion, it remains necessary to determine whether the Board has also demonstrated that Payne\u2019s conduct was irremediable before this court may affirm the circuit court\u2019s decision. Payne asserts that the Board has not made this showing, and that the Board\u2019s failure to give him the statutorily required warning rendered the circuit court\u2019s decision erroneous regardless of the validity of the Board\u2019s determination that there existed cause for Payne\u2019s dismissal.\nWhere conduct which forms the basis of charges seeking dismissal is deemed remediable, the Board must give the teacher a written warning which informs him of the consequences of failing to take corrective measures. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 85.) Where no warning is given, the Board\u2019s evidence must prove that the teacher\u2019s conduct is irremediable. If the Board fails to meet this evidentiary burden, it is deprived of jurisdiction to terminate a teacher\u2019s employment. (Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 405, 411-13, 421 N.E.2d 387.) The question of remediability is for the Board in the first instance, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is arbitrary and capricious. (Morris.) Conduct is irremediable where damage results therefrom which could not have been corrected regardless of whether the teacher received an adequate timely warning. Morris; McCutcheon v. Board of Education (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 993, 998, 419 N.E.2d 451.\nApplication of simple logic to the facts of this case shows that Payne\u2019s possession of marijuana in 1976 was irremediable conduct. The damage to the students, faculty, and school which flowed from that incident and which constituted cause for dismissal occurred immediately upon revelation of it. A warning to Payne could not have remedied this damage or in any way served to lessen its impact. Thus, the case is distinguishable from those cited by Payne, such as Allione v. Board of Education (1961), 29 Ill. App. 2d 261, 173 N.E.2d 13, where the charges involved conduct such as tardiness for work, lack of discipline of students, and the like. Here, no warning was required by the Board. Payne\u2019s conduct in 1976 was clearly irremediable. The hearing officer erred in finding to the contrary.\nFor these reasons, we find that the circuit court correctly reversed the hearing officer\u2019s decision and ordered Payne\u2019s dismissal based upon his 1976 possession of marijuana. Consequently, it is unnecessary for us to address the Board\u2019s remaining specifications against Payne which involved the 1978 drug charges, or the parties\u2019 arguments in relation thereto.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHARTMAN, P. J., and STAMOS, J\u201e concur.\nDecember 28,1978; January 23, March 1, and May 18,1979.\nPayne also presented the testimony of Rosemary Lear as part of his case. We do not find her testimony to be relevant to our disposition of the appeal and therefore do not recite it here.\nPayne also argues that section 34 \u2014 84b of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 84b) precluded the Board from relying on the 1976 guilty plea in seeking his dismissal, since Payne received only probation for that offense. Section 34 \u2014 84b lists specific grounds, involving sex or narcotics offenses, for which the Board may immediately suspend a teacher. An exception to this power is entry of a sentence of probation for a narcotics offense. Clearly, this provision was intended to be a \u201csword\u201d for the Board rather than a \u201cshield\u201d for a teacher. Nothing in the exception to this \u201csword\" limits the Board\u2019s power to follow the standard dismissal procedures based upon acts which might also come within the ambit of this provision. Payne\u2019s contrary argument is unconvincing.\nMorrison also suggests that examination should be made of the individual\u2019s motives in engaging in the conduct and of the impact a dismissal would have upon the person\u2019s constitutional rights. We do not find it beneficial to discuss these factors in light of the circumstances of this case.\nWe do note that the record shows in mitigation that several witnesses considered Payne a disciplinarian and a good teacher. This factor does not, in our opinion, outweigh the negative evidence concerning the impact of Payne\u2019s conduct upon his capacity to effectively function as a teacher.\nWe note that the central case relied upon by Payne in making this argument, Gilliland v. Board of Education (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 861, 343 N.E.2d 704, was reversed by the supreme court, which held exactly the opposite of Payne\u2019s present position. 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE DOWNING" } ], "attorneys": [ "Roosevelt Thomas, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Michael J. Murray, of Chicago (Christine Holtz, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTEE PAYNE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 80-1831\nOpinion filed December 22, 1981.\nRoosevelt Thomas, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMichael J. Murray, of Chicago (Christine Holtz, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0741-01", "first_page_order": 763, "last_page_order": 772 }