{
  "id": 3571662,
  "name": "DEBORAH CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY E. HARKRADER, Clerk of the County of Peoria, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carrigan v. Harkrader",
  "decision_date": "1986-08-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201485\u20140731",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 3d 535"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "493 N.E.2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5667674
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/143/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "571 F.2d 1098",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        922532
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/571/1098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 F. Supp. 838",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4165181
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/496/0838-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "457 N.E.2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3163510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/99/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "461 N.E.2d 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 3d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3522336
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/122/0471-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5101,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.545484803170988e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5249910322957053
    },
    "sha256": "202dfc093b96dbb998f9ddc45624c51634dc36ace4438c1d23463bef681817ff",
    "simhash": "1:d1e774cb2ae57ba1",
    "word_count": 809
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:17.515999+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DEBORAH CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY E. HARKRADER, Clerk of the County of Peoria, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn May 9, 1985, the plaintiff, Deborah Carrigan, filed suit against the defendant, Peoria County Clerk Mary E. Harkrader, to obtain a copy of the letter which the Peoria County sheriff submitted in conjunction with the plaintiff\u2019s liquor-license application. As an affirmative defense, the defendant denied that the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, eh. 116, par. 201 et seq.), authorized the plaintiff\u2019s request and alternatively argued that the letter was exempt from disclosure.\nAfter inspecting the letter in camera, the court denied the plaintiff\u2019s request for disclosure. The court found the Act applicable only to records and reports prepared subsequent to its enactment date of July 1, 1984. Consequently, the court ruled the letter exempt from discovery due to its August 11, 1983, date and its opinionated, advisory nature.\nOn appeal, the plaintiff argues that disclosure is warranted because the liquor commission used, possessed and controlled the opinionated recommendation after the effective date of the Act. The defendant responds that the Act applies prospectively to documents prepared and submitted to a public body; and, alternatively, that the letter was exempt from disclosure.\nEffective July 1, 1984, the Act provides in pertinent part that any county administrative body shall allow nonexempt public records to be inspected or copied. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 116, pars. 202(a), 203(a).) Public records include opinionated letters about any private person which currently or in the past were used, received, possessed, or controlled by any public body. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 116, par. 202(c)(ix).\nWe acknowledge both that the purpose of the Act is to provide disclosure of information about government\u2019s affairs and its representatives\u2019 official acts (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 116, par. 201), and that the Act clearly applies to records and reports prepared or received on or after July 1, 1984 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 116, par. 43.29). The instant dilemma, however, is based on the following. The sheriff prepared and submitted the letter to the liquor commission in 1983. After the Act became effective, the plaintiff requested that document which the liquor commission possessed but refused to disclose.\nAbsent express legislative intent to the contrary, a statute creating new obligations will only be prospectively applied. (Board of Education v. Illinois State Board of Education (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 471, 461 N.E.2d 567.) Thus, we must ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent best evidenced by the ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Sayles v. Thompson (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 122, 457 N.E.2d 440.\nWe find that the Act which was clearly effective on July 1, 1984, prospectively expanded an individual\u2019s right to inspect or copy nonexempt public records possessed or controlled by a public body. Thus, the Act applied to the plaintiff\u2019s request for disclosure since her disclosure request was initiated after the Act became effective (see Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. v. Federal Trade Com. (N.D. Ind. 1980), 496 F. Supp. 838), and application of the Act in effect when the court rendered its decision is neither manifestly unjust nor contrary to the legislative intent (see Hill v. United States (9th Cir. 1978), 571 F.2d 1098).\nBefore deciding whether the plaintiff was entitled to access to the letter, we must acknowledge that the Act also limited access to information by providing that unless publicly cited and identified by the head of a public body, recommendations which express opinions are exempt from inspection and copying. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 116, par. 207(f).\nWe concur in the trial court\u2019s in camera determination that the Peoria County sheriff set forth his opinionated recommendation about the plaintiff\u2019s liquor-license application in the letter he submitted to the liquor commission. Those findings were not publicly cited by either the Peoria County liquor commissioner or the Illinois Liquor Control Commission. Thus, we recognize the dilemma caused by an applicant for an occupational license, but find that we must honor the plain language of one of the many exceptions carved by the legislature to whittle away a person\u2019s right to access to information about his government\u2019s affairs, even if they pertain to him. (See Copley Press, Inc. v. City of Springfield (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 370, 493 N.E.2d 127.) Therefore, the court appropriately found the requested document exempt from disclosure.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is reversed as to the court\u2019s ruling on the applicability of the Act; the balance of the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nSCOTT, P.J., and WOMBACHER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald L. Hamm, of Hamm & Hanna, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "John A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DEBORAH CARRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY E. HARKRADER, Clerk of the County of Peoria, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201485\u20140731\nOpinion filed August 12,1986.\nRonald L. Hamm, of Hamm & Hanna, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellant.\nJohn A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 560
}