{
  "id": 5439690,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK J. GORMAN CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.-(The State of Illinois et al., Counterdefendants-Appellees.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Patrick J. Gorman Consultants, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1982-12-30",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 81-1099, 81-1322 cons.",
  "first_page": "729",
  "last_page": "732",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 729"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "396 N.E.2d 1150",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5603550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/78/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "577 F.2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        879572
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/577/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "586 F.2d 64",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        840945
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/586/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "600 F.2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1453235
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/600/0600-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "438 U.S. 478",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1769196
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/438/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "424 U.S. 409",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12026708
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/424/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.E.2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5437214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/65/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 N.E.2d 868",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5810566
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/68/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 N.E.2d 1131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 997",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3414829
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/56/0997-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 F. Supp. 1207",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4172189
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/500/1207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 N.E.2d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 3d 1048",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3305846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/68/1048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.E.2d 537",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 2d 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5430278
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/64/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 N.E.2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        12130308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/96/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 N.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3242459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/69/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "376 N.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3352002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/60/0331-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 492,
    "char_count": 8129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.33941190828308e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7919994563389603
    },
    "sha256": "cf6d78de8763002a955535591665ebbb6439c8cdbae1e36e93f75303c14f66bb",
    "simhash": "1:39057eb838490dd1",
    "word_count": 1310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.990742+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK J. GORMAN CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.\u2014(The State of Illinois et al., Counterdefendants-Appellees.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this consolidated appeal, defendants Patrick J. Gorman, Martin D. Gorman and Patrick J. Gorman Consultants, Inc., appeal from a portion of a trial court order which dismissed their counterclaim against the State of Illinois, the Attorney General and his three named assistants.\nThe Attorney General originally filed charges in 1976 for violations of \u201cAn Act to regulate solicitation and collection of funds for charitable purposes ***\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 23, par. 5101 et seq.). Since then, this court has issued three decisions in the matter: People ex rel. Scott v. Police Hall of Fame, Inc. (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 331, 376 N.E.2d 665 (liability and injunction prohibiting further solicitation affirmed); People ex rel. Scott v. Police Hall of Fame, Inc. (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 501, 387 N.E.2d 856 (supplemental proceedings reversed and contempt citations quashed); and People ex rel. Scott v. Gorman (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 289, 421 N.E.2d 228 (award of damages vacated and remanded).\nIn October 1980, the Gormans filed the present counterclaim. Count II alleged that plaintiffs violated the Federal civil rights act and committed State common law torts. The Gormans sought compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $3,500,000. In its order of dismissal entered on March 31, 1981, the trial court found that the State was immune based on State sovereign immunity and that the prosecutors were \u201cabsolutely immune\u201d for any of the alleged acts.\nWe first address the Gormans\u2019 contention that the Attorney General waived State sovereign immunity by filing suit against the Gormans.\nSection 4 of article XIII of the 1970 Constitution abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity \u201cexcept as the General Assembly may provide by law.\u201d The General Assembly retained sovereign immunity by enacting legislation which states: \u201cExcept as provided in \u2018An Act to create the Court of Claims ***\u2019 the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 801.) Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cThe court [of Claims] shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters:\n* * *\n(d) All claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort, if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 439.8.\nThus, only the General Assembly, and hot the Attorney General, can determine when claims against the State will be allowed. (Seifert v. Standard Paving Co. (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 109, 355 N.E.2d 537; see also Watson v. St. Annes Hospital (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 386 N.E.2d 885.) And the legislature has determined that sovereign immunity is waived only when suits against the State are brought pursuant to the Court of Claims Act.\nTo support their claim that the Attorney General has the authority to waive State sovereign immunity, the Gormans rely upon the holding in Marrapese v. State of Rhode Island (D. R.I. 1980), 500 F. Supp. 1207. There, however, the court specifically distinguished Rhode Island law, which contains a broad waiver of immunity, from Illinois law in which the waiver of immunity is carefully controlled by the Court of Claims Act. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly dismissed the counterclaim against the State because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the claims against the State.\nThe Gormans also argue that the trial court erred in finding the prosecutors absolutely immune from liability for any of the acts alleged. Because the counterclaim alleged violations of both Federal and State law, we address both State and Federal grants of immunity to State prosecutors.\nIn Illinois, pursuant to the doctrine of public official immunity, State officials and employees are fully protected from liability for acts falling within their official discretion. (Madden v. Kuehn (1978), 56 Ill. App. 3d 997, 372 N.E.2d 1131; Mora v. State (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 223, 369 N.E.2d 868.) Discretionary acts are those which are unique to the particular public office and not merely ministerial in nature. Madden v. Kuehn; People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 359 N.E.2d 149.\nIn this case, the Gormans\u2019 claims all relate to actions alleged to have been taken in the course of the prosecutions for violations of the Act. Section 9(a) of the Act specifically authorizes plaintiffs to prosecute violators and states in pertinent part:\n\u201c(a) An action for violation of this Act may be prosecuted by the Attorney General in the name of the people of the State, and in any such action, the Attorney General shall exercise all the powers and perform all duties which the State\u2019s Attorney would otherwise be authorized to exercise or to perform therein.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 23, par. 5109.)\nBecause all of the actions are alleged to have been part of the proseention which is statutorily mandated by the Act, these actions are discretionary in nature. Therefore the counterclaim against the prosecutors was barred by the public official immunity doctrine and thus, properly dismissed by the trial court.\nThe Gormans contend, however, that along with State common law torts, Federal violations of the Act are involved. They argue that, pursuant to the holding in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), 424 U.S. 409, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 96 S. Ct. 984, plaintiffs are not entitled to absolute immunity and that therefore the State law public immunity doctrine is of no consequence in this case. In Imbler, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor has absolute immunity in the initiation of a prosecution and in the presentation of the State\u2019s case. The court left open the question whether prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for activities conducted by them in their administrative or investigative roles. We need not, however, reach that issue here. With the possible exception of one allegation that plaintiffs provided false information to newspapers (see Butz v. Economou (1978), 438 U.S. 478, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, 98 S. Ct. 2894; Hampton v. Hanrahan (7th Cir. 1979), 600 F.2d 600), the allegations in the counterclaim all charge various ways in which plaintiffs improperly prosecuted and continue to prosecute the Gormans during the initiation of proceedings against them and in the presentation of the case. (Hampton v. Hanrahan; Daniels v. Kieser (7th Cir. 1978), 586 F.2d 64; Heidelberg v. Hammer (7th Cir. 1978), 577 F.2d 429.) Because these activities relate to the quasi-judicial functions of the prosecutors, they were properly afforded absolute immunity for such acts. Imbler v. Pachtman.\nThe sole claim that could be characterized as an activity outside plaintiffs\u2019 prosecutorial roles is the providing of false information to newspapers. This claim, as well as all the other charges against plaintiffs, fails to contain any specific factual allegations which if proved would establish that any of the prosecutors exceeded their authority. Pleadings which state conclusions and characterize acts rather than state facts are insufficient. (Betts v. Department of Revenue (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 102, 396 N.E.2d 1150.) The Gormans therefore failed to state a cause of action for violation of the Federal civil rights act or the commission of a State common law tort.\nFor the reasons stated, the portion of the order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing the Gormans\u2019 counterclaim against the State of Illinois, the Attorney General and the three named assistant Attorney Generals is affirmed.\nOrder affirmed.\nMcGILLICUDDY and RIZZI, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shelly Waxman & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Chicago (Leslie J. Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK J. GORMAN CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.\u2014(The State of Illinois et al., Counterdefendants-Appellees.)\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNos. 81\u20141099, 81\u20141322 cons.\nOpinion filed December 30, 1982.\nShelly Waxman & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Chicago (Leslie J. Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0729-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 754
}