{
  "id": 2512199,
  "name": "RONALD B. BARTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bartos v. Chicago Board of Elections",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-27",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 1\u201489\u20140170, 1\u201489\u20140379 cons.",
  "first_page": "937",
  "last_page": "939",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 937"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "197 N.E.2d 48",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5242654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/44/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 N.E.2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3121858
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/98/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.970356374378451e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31268734200333687
    },
    "sha256": "8132c100a33198bc413af549edc03063d7175e6c4397eda70e2afc2a52df7eed",
    "simhash": "1:a2cf45be9609043a",
    "word_count": 784
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:26:25.592248+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RONALD B. BARTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MURRAY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRonald B. Bartos (Bartos), plaintiff, appeals from a January 19, 1989, order of the circuit court of Cook County involving the February 28, 1989, Chicago primary mayoral election. The Board of Election Commissioners (Board) appeals a February 2, 1989, decision of the same court denying it sanctions.\nThe undisputed facts disclose that Bartos, on January 5, 1989, sought to file an intent to be a write-in candidate of the Solidarity Party for the office of mayor of the City of Chicago at the February 28, 1989, special mayoral election. The Board denied the request based on its untimeliness. Bartos then sought judicial review of the Board\u2019s action. The trial court dismissed Bartos\u2019 petition. Bartos filed a timely appeal. On January 27, 1989, the Board filed a motion for sanctions for attorney fees and expenses. The trial court denied that motion. The Board also filed a timely appeal. The two appeals have been consolidated.\nWe dismiss Bartos\u2019 appeal on the basis of mootness and affirm the trial court\u2019s decision denying the Board motion for sanctions.\nIn fairness to Bartos, he did file a motion to expedite his appeal on February 2, 1989, almost a month before the involved February 28, 1989, election. That motion was denied on February 27, 1989, because of his failure to adhere to supreme court rules governing appeals. In the meantime, the 1989 mayoral primary election passed, as did the election itself. The winner of the election was proclaimed, installed as mayor, and has served as mayor since his installation.\nIn his appellate brief, Bartos requests this court to order defendant \u201cto accept from the plaintiff, Ronald Bartos, the proper, correct, and lawful documents to be submitted to them by plaintiff and the said defendant declare and certify plaintiff as the lawful uncontested and unopposed Illinois Solidarity Party candidate (on the ballot) for the office of mayor of the City of Chicago in the special mayoral general election to be held on April 4, 1989 in the City of Chicago.\u201d Obviously, this relief cannot be granted by this court at this time.\nAn issue becomes moot when it presents or involves no actual controversy, interest or rights, or where issues have ceased to exist. (First National Bank v. Kusper (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 226, 456 N.E.2d 7.) Obviously any issue concerning Bartos\u2019 right to have his documents concerning the February 28, 1989, accepted by the Board, Chicago mayoral primary or his right to be a candidate of the Solidarity Party at the April 1989 election ceased to exist after the election was held, the winner proclaimed and installed as mayor. Since Bartos\u2019 cause is now moot, we dismiss his appeal.\nWith respect to the Board\u2019s petition for attorney fees and costs, the petition is predicated on the grounds of frivolity. It is true that section 2\u2014611 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the imposition of sanctions for frivolous, false or baseless litigation. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-611; Lipscomb v. Coppage (1964), 44 Ill. App. 2d 430, 197 N.E.2d 48.) However, Bartos diligently pressed his initial action in the trial court and on appeal. He is a pro se party, obviously a novice at election cases and unaware of procedures that can be taken to prevent an election case being mooted by the election and official proclamation of the winner. Although it may be frivolous to the Board and its excellent and experienced lawyers, plaintiff\u2019s case and appeal do not appear to be frivolous to him. From the record, it appears that plaintiff seriously believed he had the right to be a candidate for mayor for the Solidarity Party. If he knew as much of Illinois\u2019 oft-times difficult to interpret election laws as the attorneys for the Board, he might have been as successful in achieving his goal as a candidate of the Solidarity Party. For the above reason, we do not feel the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Board\u2019s petition for sanctions and, also, we deny the Board\u2019s request for fees incurred in this appeal.\nFor the above reasons, the appeal from trial court\u2019s order denying plaintiff relief is dismissed on account of mootness. The trial court\u2019s order denying the Board\u2019s petition for sanctions is affirmed.\nAppeal in appeal No. 89\u20140379 is dismissed; trial court\u2019s order in appeal No. 89\u20140170 is affirmed.\nPINCHAM and COCCIA, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MURRAY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald B. Bartos, of Chicago, appellant pro se.",
      "Ian H. Levin, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RONALD B. BARTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNos. 1\u201489\u20140170, 1\u201489\u20140379 cons.\nOpinion filed November 27, 1989.\nRonald B. Bartos, of Chicago, appellant pro se.\nIan H. Levin, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0937-01",
  "first_page_order": 959,
  "last_page_order": 961
}