{ "id": 3642932, "name": "In re PETITION TO CALL AN ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF INCORPORATING THE VILLAGE OF FOREST KNOLL", "name_abbreviation": "In re Call an Election", "decision_date": "1986-10-10", "docket_number": "No. 86\u20140065", "first_page": "436", "last_page": "438", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 436" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "318 N.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 3d 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2505203 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/23/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 N.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Ill. App. 3d 1133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2998672 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1138" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/110/1133-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N.E.2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 2d 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2737676 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "478 N.E.2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3137767 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/106/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 N.E.2d 1374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1379" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 2d 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3167435 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362-63" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/111/0350-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 412, "char_count": 6855, "ocr_confidence": 0.781, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6304995471017623e-07, "percentile": 0.68882973486099 }, "sha256": "aee5e7f2efedd598f36bb396bc34ea37663102a799676f17fa66d80c49e86213", "simhash": "1:6a1daf87b43c8f25", "word_count": 1180 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:24.109479+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re PETITION TO CALL AN ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF INCORPORATING THE VILLAGE OF FOREST KNOLL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LINDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA petition was filed in the circuit court of Lake County requesting that an election be called on the question of whether a village to be named Forest Knoll should be incorporated. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u20145a.) The cities of Lake Forest and North Chicago filed objections to the petition. Both objectors moved for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that it was undisputed that the objectors did not consent to the incorporation as required by section 2 \u2014 3\u20145a of the Illinois Municipal Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u20145a.) Petitioners moved to strike the objections on the grounds that the statute does not permit the filing of objections by existing municipalities and the objectors lacked standing to object to the petition.\nThe court found:\n\u201c1. The motion to strike is tardy.\n2. Under sec. 2 \u2014 3\u20145a, chap. 24, Ill. Rev. Stat. consent of municipalities within 1 Vz miles must be alleged and it has not.\n3. The Cities of North Chicago and Lake Forest are interested parties and have not consented to the incorporation. They have standing to object.\u201d\nThe court therefore denied petitioners\u2019 motion to strike objections, granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the petition. Petitioners have appealed, arguing that the court\u2019s order was erroneous for various reasons. We do not reach the issues raised by petitioners, however, because the trial court\u2019s ruling was premature. We therefore vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.\nSection 2 \u2014 3\u201418 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides:\n\u201cIn any county of between 150,000 and 1,000,000 population which has adopted an official plan under \u201cAn Act to provide for regional planning and for the creation, organization and powers of regional planning commissions\u201d, approved June 25, 1929, as amended, the county board, by resolution, may provide that before the question of incorporating a village under this Division is submitted to the electors in response to a petition filed under Section 2 \u2014 3\u20145 or 2 \u2014 3\u201410 the county board must first determine that (1) the proposed incorporation is compatible with the official plan for the development of the county, and (2) the lands described in the petition as intended to be embraced in the village constitute a sufficient tax base as will insure the ability of the village to provide all necessary municipal services to its inhabitants. When such a resolution is in effect, the court in which such a petition is filed shall first require a showing that those determinations have been made by the county board. If no such showing is made, the court shall deny the petition. If such a showing is made, the court shall proceed as provided in Section 2 \u2014 3\u20146 or 2 \u2014 3\u201411, as the case may be.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u201418.)\nThe petition alleged that Lake County\u2019s population is in the range covered by this statute, and that its county board has adopted an official plan under the act. It also alleged that the county board had adopted a resolution requiring the determinations noted prior to the submission to the electors of the question of incorporating a village.\nAlthough section 2 \u2014 3\u20145a is not cited in section 2 \u2014 3\u201418, we agree with the position implicitly taken in the petition that section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 is applicable to petitions filed under section 2 \u2014 3\u20145a. Section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 only applies to counties with populations between 150,000 and 1 million, yet it refers to section 2 \u2014 3\u20145, which, by its terms, applies only to counties of less than 150,000 population. Apparently, in different acts effective on the same day, the legislature enacted section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 and split old section 2 \u2014 3\u20145 into two sections, new section 2 \u2014 3\u20145 and section 2 \u2014 3\u20145a, which applied to counties of different populations. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u20145; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 24, pars. 2\u2014 3 \u2014 5, 2 \u2014 3\u20145a, 2 \u2014 3\u201418; see also Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 24, pars. 2 \u2014 3\u2014 5, 2 \u2014 3\u20145a, 2 \u2014 3\u201418 (Smith-Hurd 1962 & Supp. 1986).) The legislature clearly intended that petitions filed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 3\u20145a be subject to the requirements of section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 since otherwise the reference to section 2 \u2014 3\u20145 would be a nullity. Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 350, 362-63, 489 N.E.2d 1374, 1379 (\u201cThe courts also will avoid a construction of a statute which would render any portion of it meaningless or void\u201d); In re Marriage of Freeman (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 290, 297, 478 N.E.2d 326, 329 (whenever possible, some reasonable meaning must be attributed to every word, clause or section of a statute).\nWhere section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 is applicable, it is clear that \u201cthe court *** shall first require a showing that\u201d the county board has made the determinations required. (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u201418.) Although petitioners alleged that they had requested the Lake County board to make the required determinations, the court did not require them to make a showing that the county board had made those determinations. Since it is apparent from the statute that the court was to require this showing before proceeding further on the petition, the court prematurely decided the other issues raised. See People ex rel. Moran v. Teolis (1960), 20 Ill. 2d 95, 99, 169 N.E.2d 232, 235 (conditions of statute authorizing creation of a municipal corporation must be complied with in manner prescribed by statute else the court is without jurisdiction); In re Estate of Mears (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 1133, 1138, 443 N.E.2d 289, 293 (legislature may impose substantive conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction which cannot be waived by a court); In re Organization of the Fox Valley Community Airport Authority (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 168, 170, 318 N.E.2d 496, 498 (creation of municipal entities is totally within the control of the legislature).\nWe express no views on the issues raised by petitioners in their brief. We hold only that the court did not require the showing necessary under section 2 \u2014 3\u201418 prior to other proceedings on the petition, as mandated by the terms of the. statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 2 \u2014 3\u201418.) The order of the circuit court must therefore be vacated and the cause remanded for proceedings in accordance with section 2\u2014 3- 18.\nVacated and remanded.\nUNVERZAGT and WOODWARD, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LINDBERG" } ], "attorneys": [ "Wendy U. Larsen, Charles L. Siemon, Gerald P. Callaghan, and William W. Merrill III, all of Siemon, Larsen & Purdy, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Murray R. Conzelman, of Conzelman, Schultz, Snarski & Mullen, of Waukegan, and Thomas H. Compere, of Lake Forest, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re PETITION TO CALL AN ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF INCORPORATING THE VILLAGE OF FOREST KNOLL.\nSecond District\nNo. 86\u20140065\nOpinion filed October 10, 1986.\nWendy U. Larsen, Charles L. Siemon, Gerald P. Callaghan, and William W. Merrill III, all of Siemon, Larsen & Purdy, of Chicago, for appellants.\nMurray R. Conzelman, of Conzelman, Schultz, Snarski & Mullen, of Waukegan, and Thomas H. Compere, of Lake Forest, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0436-01", "first_page_order": 458, "last_page_order": 460 }