{
  "id": 3640570,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAM KEMPINERS, Director, Illinois Department of Public Health, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DRAPER et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Kempiners v. Draper",
  "decision_date": "1985-08-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 5-84-0813",
  "first_page": "25",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 25"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "476 N.E.2d 80",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3436713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/131/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.E.2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "456"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2784446
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "32"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.E.2d 46",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "48"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2906318
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 N.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "557"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2991646
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "508"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/75/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 441,
    "char_count": 8589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6016041861900057
    },
    "sha256": "212f662aabc21435c8b1289ee04c17dfa8935e4e5c90e2fbed3a29a9ff94fa92",
    "simhash": "1:fbddcc16a9ed74fb",
    "word_count": 1427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:48:08.242422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAM KEMPINERS, Director, Illinois Department of Public Health, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DRAPER et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this action the State of Illinois on the relation of William Kempiners, the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, sought to enjoin the operation of a mobile home park without a license by the defendants, Steven Draper and First National Bank and Trust Company of Carbondale, in alleged violation of the provisions of the Mobile Home and Mobile Home Park Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 111 \u00bd, par. 711 et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the Mobile Home Act). The mobile home park in question, which is known as Draper\u2019s Rental and is operated by the defendant Draper, is located outside of and within one-half mile of the city limits of the city of Carbondale, a home rule unit of local government. The defendant bank owns the property upon which the mobile home park is located. The trial court granted the defendant Draper\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint and subsequently dismissed the cause of action. This appeal followed, in which a single question is presented for review: \u201cWhether the State of Illinois has the power to enforce its public health statutes within one-half mile of the corporate limits of a home rule unit.\u201d\nIn his motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendant Draper alleged that, by virtue of section 7 \u2014 4\u20141 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 24, par. 7 \u2014 4\u20141), the city of Carbondale has jurisdiction to enforce health ordinances and regulations within one-half mile of its corporate limits and that by virtue of section 11\u2014 13 \u2014 1 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 24, par. 11 \u2014 13\u20141) the city of Carbondale has zoning powers within V-k miles of its corporate limits. In the motion to dismiss, the defendant alleged further that by virtue of section 26 of the Mobile Home Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 111 \u00bd, par. 736), that act does not apply within the jurisdiction of any home rule unit. Section 26 of the Mobile Home Act provides: \u201cThis Act does not apply within the jurisdiction of any home rule unit.\u201d Section 7 \u2014 4\u20141 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides as follows: \u201cThe corporate authorities in all municipalities have jurisdiction in and over all places within one-half mile of the corporate limits for the purpose of enforcing health and quarantine ordinances and regulations.\u201d Section 11 \u2014 13\u20141 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides in pertinent part: \u201cThe powers enumerated [in section 11 \u2014 13\u20141] may be exercised within the corporate limits or within contiguous territory not more than one and one-half miles beyond the corporate limits and not included within any municipality.\u201d\nThe trial court found, inter alia, that the city of Carbondale licenses mobile home parks within its boundaries, that the city of Carbondale does not license mobile home parks outside its corporate boundaries, and that the mobile home park in question is licensed by neither the State of Illinois nor the city of Carbondale. In granting the motion to dismiss the complaint the trial court concluded that \u201c[s]ince Carbondale \u2018has\u2019 jurisdiction in the area [sic] Draper\u2019s mobile home park is situated, Draper\u2019s park is exempt from the licensing statute by the statute\u2019s own terms in paragraph 736. Moreover, a Home Rule Unit\u2019s powers preempt State statutes pursuant to Article VI, Sec. 6 of the Illinois Constitution.\u201d An appeal was taken from the order.\nWe ordered the appeal of that order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not a final and appealable one. The trial court subsequently entered an order dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action. The subsequent order adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the order that dismissed the complaint. This appeal is taken from the order dismissing the cause of action.\nIn its brief, the appellant does not suggest that the extraterritorial grant of jurisdiction provided to home rule units by section 7 \u2014 4\u2014 1 of the Illinois Municipal Code has no application with respect to the Mobile Home Act, and we make no determination in that regard. The appellant maintains that the jurisdiction granted by section 7\u2014 4 \u2014 1 of the Illinois Municipal Code is what the appellant calls \u201cenforcement jurisdiction\u201d and argues that \u201c[bjecause enforcement of public health laws is the purpose of this grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction, by the terms of the statute, where a municipality is not enforcing its public health ordinances outside its limits, no jurisdiction exists. *** Where there is no enforcement, there is no jurisdiction.\u201d The appellant concludes that \u201c[t]he defendants\u2019 premises are not within the jurisdiction of a home rule unit, and are subject to regulation by the State Department of Public Health.\u201d We find the appellant\u2019s argument unpersuasive.\nThe appellant seems to say that if a home rule unit does not exercise the jurisdiction granted by section 7 \u2014 4\u20141, it lacks the \u201cjurisdiction\u201d specified in section 26 of the Mobile Home Act. \u201cJurisdiction\u201d and the \u201cexercise of jurisdiction\u201d are not, however, synonymous terms. We think that the language of section 26 of the Mobile Home Act and of section 7 \u2014 4\u20141 of the Illinois Municipal Code means what it says. Where the language of a statute is plain, it must be given effect by the courts, which cannot read into a statute words that are not within the plain intention of the legislature as determined from the statute itself and cannot restrict or enlarge the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute. (People ex rel. Daley v. $9,m (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 188, 476 N.E.2d 80.) The fact that the city of Carbondale does not, in fact, enforce health ordinances and regulations within one-half mile of its corporate limits does not alter the fact that section 7 \u2014 4\u20141 gives it the jurisdiction to do so. The appellant expresses concern about the \u201cregulatory no man\u2019s land\u201d created in the half-mile area beyond the city limits of Carbon-dale when that city does not license mobile home parks there. Given the plain language of the statute, we think that this is a matter properly to be addressed either to the legislature of the State of Illinois or the authorities of the city of Carbondale. Since the appellant appears from the record not to have raised in the trial court the equal protection argument advanced here, we decline to consider it.\nAffirmed.\nKASSERMAN, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES"
      },
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WELCH,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent.\nThe majority does not directly address the State\u2019s contention that the city and the State have concurrent jurisdiction within 1 \u00bd miles outside the corporate limits. Whether the legislature has, by enactment, granted certain powers to the city within that area is one question; whether the legislature has given up the State\u2019s jurisdiction in that area is quite another. (See County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co. (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 494, 508, 389 N.E.2d 553, 557.) There is no presumption that the former implies the latter. The correct presumption is to the contrary:\n\u201cHome rule units may exercise and perform concurrently with the State any power or function of a home rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or specifically declare the State\u2019s exercise to be exclusive.\u201d (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, sec. 6(i).)\nMunicipalities have only those powers expressly granted to them by the General Assembly or those necessarily implied from or incident to powers expressly granted. (Appeal Board of the Department of Environmental Control v. United States Steel Corp. (1971), 48 Ill. 2d 575, 577, 272 N.E.2d 46, 48.) While the legislature may expressly or impliedly provide for exclusive as opposed to concurrent authority (Illinois Liquor Control Com. v. City of Joliet (1975), 26 Ill. App. 3d 27, 32, 324 N.E.2d 453, 456), there is no indication that such was intended here. Absent any indication to the contrary, I would conclude that the area of mobile home park licensing is one in which the State\u2019s jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the city within the \u201cbelt\u201d surrounding the city, and I would reverse on that basis. Accordingly, I dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "JUSTICE WELCH,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (James P. Nally, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "C. Robert Hall, of Carbondale, for appellee Steven Draper."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAM KEMPINERS, Director, Illinois Department of Public Health, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN DRAPER et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 84\u20140813\nOpinion filed August 19, 1985.\nWELCH, J., dissenting.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (James P. Nally, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.\nC. Robert Hall, of Carbondale, for appellee Steven Draper."
  },
  "file_name": "0025-01",
  "first_page_order": 47,
  "last_page_order": 50
}