{
  "id": 5108634,
  "name": "J.C. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON et al., Defendants-Appellees (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, Intervenor-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davidson v. Davidson",
  "decision_date": "1993-03-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-90-3092",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 537"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "588 N.E.2d 1139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1146"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 Ill. 2d 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3277960
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/147/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "579 N.E.2d 866",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "870"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. 2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5592581
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/144/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 3956,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.273565774773492e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3868893514641201
    },
    "sha256": "cd6e5281c269830bab9f96e23867940800ebfb202ba74335dee66e6a4b3d6c7e",
    "simhash": "1:2ec6f4db42d25c41",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.285518+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J.C. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON et al., Defendants-Appellees (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, Intervenor-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE RIZZI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff J.C. Davidson brought this action in the circuit court seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and other equitable relief against defendants William E Davidson, James F. Davidson, Thomas Davidson, Scott Davidson and T.H. Davidson Co., Inc. Plaintiff, who is 77 years old, filed a motion to set preference for trial pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1007.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states:\n\u201cPreference in setting for trial, (a) A party who is an individual and has reached the age of 70 years shall, upon motion by that party, be entitled to preference in setting for trial unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1007.1.\nDefendants filed a motion to set aside the statute on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and intervenor Neil H. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois, filed a memorandum in opposition to defendants\u2019 motion. The trial court entered an order declaring section 2 \u2014 1007.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure unconstitutional. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1007.1.) Upon motion of the intervenor, the circuit court certified the following question of law for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (134 Ill. 2d R. 308):\n\u201cWhether paragraph 2 \u2014 1007.1(a) of the Civil Practice Act which states that \u2018A party who is an individual and has reached the age of 70 years shall, upon motion by that party, be entitled to preference in setting for trial unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole\u2019 is unconstitutional as conflicting with the Supreme Court\u2019s rule making powers and whether the statute impermissibly interferes with a trial court\u2019s ability to control its own calendar.\u201d\nThis court granted intervenor\u2019s application for leave to appeal. We reverse and remand.\nThe separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution provides: \u201cThe legislative, executive and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.\u201d (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, \u00a71.) Thus, the judicial branch of government possesses the constitutional authority to promulgate procedural rules to facilitate the discharge of its constitutional duties. (County of Cook, Cermak Health Services v. Illinois State Local Labor Relations Board (1991), 144 Ill. 2d 326, 332, 579 N.E.2d 866, 870.) The legislature, however, may enact laws governing judicial practice, so long as the laws do not unduly infringe upon the inherent powers of the judiciary. DeLuna v. St. Elizabeth\u2019s Hospital (1992), 147 Ill. 2d 57, 73, 588 N.E.2d 1139, 1146.\nHere, plainly the statute does not conflict with any supreme court rule or interfere with the ability of the trial court to control its own calendar. Under the circumstances, the statute implements a legislative intent to advance for trial the cases of senior citizens who might otherwise not be able to have their cases heard, without infringing upon the inherent powers of the judiciary. The trial court therefore erred in holding the statute unconstitutional.\nAccordingly, we hold, in answer to the certified question, that section 2 \u2014 1007.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is constitutional. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1007.1.) The order of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nTULLY, P.J., and CERDA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE RIZZI"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel N. Malato, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Schreiber, Mack & Postweiler, of Orland Park (Thomas L. Murphy, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J.C. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON et al., Defendants-Appellees (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, Intervenor-Appellant).\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1-90-3092\nOpinion filed March 10, 1993.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield (Daniel N. Malato, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.\nSchreiber, Mack & Postweiler, of Orland Park (Thomas L. Murphy, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 559
}