{
  "id": 411593,
  "name": "KYLE TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE COUNTY OF PEORIA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. County of Peoria",
  "decision_date": "2000-04-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 3 \u2014 98 \u2014 0763",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "530 N.E.2d 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "635",
          "parenthetical": "court deemed \"the assessment of additional costs to be predominantly a procedural matter\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 3d 908",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3553802
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "919",
          "parenthetical": "court deemed \"the assessment of additional costs to be predominantly a procedural matter\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/175/0908-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "571 N.E.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "252",
          "parenthetical": "requiring a fee for individuals on probation in order to offset the rising costs of probation is a matter of procedure"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2599588
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311",
          "parenthetical": "requiring a fee for individuals on probation in order to offset the rising costs of probation is a matter of procedure"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/212/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "664 N.E.2d 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "39"
        },
        {
          "page": "40"
        },
        {
          "page": "40"
        },
        {
          "page": "40"
        },
        {
          "page": "40"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 Ill. 2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        57335
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "289"
        },
        {
          "page": "290-91"
        },
        {
          "page": "291"
        },
        {
          "page": "290"
        },
        {
          "page": "290"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/171/0282-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4736,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.6322777456879506e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3519514072055938
    },
    "sha256": "025651f9dad14f75c694be928238bb1ad4d117653e0d6af5fb6d84568abda79b",
    "simhash": "1:2322985d9f11cb4c",
    "word_count": 809
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:04.567640+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KYLE TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE COUNTY OF PEORIA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Kyle Taylor filed a class action against the County of Peoria (Peoria), alleging that a fee imposed by the sheriff of Peoria for the taking of bail was not authorized by the Counties Code (55 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1001 et seq. (West 1996)). Peoria moved to dismiss Taylor\u2019s claim. The trial court denied Peoria\u2019s motion and certified a question of law for review. We granted Peoria\u2019s petition for leave to appeal. On June 15, 1999, this court issued its opinion, holding that bail on criminal process is within the exclusive province of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Code) (725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 7 through 110 \u2014 15 (West 1996)). The legislature subsequently enacted Public Act 91 \u2014 94, amending the Counties Code and the Criminal Code to allow the contested fee. Pub. Act 91 \u2014 94, eff. January 1, 2000 (amending 55 ILCS 5/4 \u2014 5001 (West 1996), and 725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 7(b) (West 1996)). Peoria petitioned for rehearing. We hold that Public Act 91 \u2014 94 only provides a procedural change in the law and therefore applies to the case at bar.\nFACTS\n\u2022Following the issuance of our opinion, the legislature amended section 4 \u2014 5001 of the Counties Code to allow sheriffs of counties of the first and second class to impose and collect a fee for taking \u201call bonds on legal process, civil and criminal.\u201d Pub. Act 91 \u2014 94, eff. January 1, 2000 (amending 55 ILCS 5/4 \u2014 5001 (West 1996)). Also amended was section 110 \u2014 7 of the Criminal Code, which now provides that bail bond may include any additional \u201cbond fee authorized by law.\u201d See Pub. Act. 91 \u2014 94, eff. January 1, 2000 (amending 725 ILCS 5/110\u2014 7(b) (West 1996)). Peoria petitioned for rehearing.\nANALYSIS\nThe sole issue before us is whether the amendments contained in Public Act 91 \u2014 94 affect the present controversy.\nPeoria argues that the amendments are applicable to this case; therefore, the contested fee was permissible. Taylor responds that the fee he paid remains improper because the recent amendments affect a vested right.\nAppellate courts will apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal, unless doing so interferes with a vested right. First of America Trust Co. v. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d 282, 289, 664 N.E.2d 36, 39 (1996). A vested right has been defined as \u201can expectation that is so far perfected that it cannot be taken away by legislation.\u201d Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290-91, 664 N.E.2d at 40. It is \u201ca complete and unconditional demand or exemption that may be equated with a property interest.\u201d Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 291, 664 N.E.2d at 40.\nThe legislature has no constitutional authority to enact an amendment that impedes a vested right. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290, 664 N.E.2d at 40. But amendatory legislation may apply to an existing controversy \u201c[w]here no vested rights are involved, either because they are not yet perfected or because the amendment is procedural in nature.\u201d Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290, 664 N.E.2d at 40.\nSection 4 \u2014 5001 of the Counties Code, as amended, allows sheriffs of counties of the first and second class to collect a $1 fee for the taking of \u201call bonds on legal process, civil and criminal.\u201d That section also allows the fee to be increased where necessary \u201cto cover the costs of providing the service.\u201d Pub. Act 91 \u2014 94, eff. January 1, 2000 (amending 55 ILCS 5/4 \u2014 5001 (West 1996).\nPeoria increased the fee from $1 to $15. Amending the Counties Code and the Criminal Code to allow for this fee does not implicate a vested right, as the taxing of such a fee is procedural in nature. See People v. Willhoite, 212 Ill. App. 3d 307, 311, 571 N.E.2d 249, 252 (1991) (requiring a fee for individuals on probation in order to offset the rising costs of probation is a matter of procedure); People v. Johnson, 175 Ill. App. 3d 908, 919, 530 N.E.2d 627, 635 (1988) (court deemed \u201cthe assessment of additional costs to be predominantly a procedural matter\u201d). Thus, the law in its present state should be applied to the facts of this case. Accordingly, Taylor\u2019s claim is without merit; the fee imposed upon Taylor is not recoverable, as the sheriff of Peoria is authorized to impose and collect a fee for taking all bonds on criminal process.\nThe certified question of the circuit court of Peoria County is answered.\nCertified question answered.\nSLATER, EJ., and HOLDRIDGE, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Donald J. Toohill (argued), Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Gary E. Orr and D. Michael Rickgauer (argued), both of Orr, Dvorak & Associates, of East Peoria, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KYLE TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE COUNTY OF PEORIA, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 98 \u2014 0763\nOpinion filed April 25, 2000.\nKevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Donald J. Toohill (argued), Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellant.\nGary E. Orr and D. Michael Rickgauer (argued), both of Orr, Dvorak & Associates, of East Peoria, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 490,
  "last_page_order": 493
}