{
  "id": 1034128,
  "name": "THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Village of Oak Park v. Department of Employment Security",
  "decision_date": "2002-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-01-3113",
  "first_page": "141",
  "last_page": "144",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 Ill. App. 3d 141"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "668 N.E.2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        159505
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315-16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/282/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "565 N.E.2d 1340",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 3d 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2553425
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/207/0488-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 305,
    "char_count": 4892,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.808,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.868525163662567e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41825199075312885
    },
    "sha256": "04dda92b3bb69b47931ddab34809335c7107cbffc8211b922bc25585975198b3",
    "simhash": "1:dbe379bd87b1640c",
    "word_count": 775
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:45:54.915644+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CERDA and SOUTH, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arises from an Illinois Department of Employment Security Board of Review (Board of Review) finding that Craig Weber is eligible to receive unemployment benefits. We conclude he is not.\nFACTS\nOak Park\u2019s board of fire and police commissioners (BFPC) discharged Weber after it held a hearing and issued written findings. The BFPC concluded in its findings Weber violated several statutes and department rules by, among other things, conducting background checks without proper authority, then selling that information to a private detective. The circuit court conducted an administrative review of the BFPC\u2019s decision and affirmed it. We affirmed the circuit court. Weber v. Village of Oak Park, No. 1 \u2014 99 \u2014 2754 (2000) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nWhen Weber filed for unemployment benefits, Oak Park challenged him on the ground that persons terminated for misconduct are ineligible for unemployment benefits. At the Board of Review administrative hearing, Oak Park introduced the BFPC transcript and findings. It contended the BFPC\u2019s findings were binding on the Board of Review. Weber\u2019s appeal of the BFPC\u2019s decision was pending in this court at the time the Board of Review made its decision on October 13, 1999.\nThe Board of Review disagreed with Oak Park, finding Oak Park did not establish misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Weber was eligible for unemployment benefits. Oak Park appealed the Board of Review\u2019s decision by seeking administrative review in the circuit court. After remanding the case twice to the Board of Review for clarifications of findings, the circuit court affirmed the Board of Review\u2019s decision.\nOak Park appeals, contending: (1) the doctrine of issue preclusion required the Board of Review to accept the findings of misconduct issued by the BFPC, and (2) the Board of Review\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nDECISION\nWhile Oak Park\u2019s brief offers little in the way of authority or legal reasoning, it does cite one important case \u2014 Osborne v. Kelly, 207 Ill. App. 3d 488, 565 N.E.2d 1340 (1991), which the Department ignores in favor of two decisions from foreign jurisdictions. In this case, Osborne is enough. It tells us fact issues finally decided in an administrative proceeding that is judicial in nature precludes litigation of those same fact issues in a subsequent proceeding. Osborne, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 491. This is a branch of res judicata referred to as collateral estoppel or, more appropriately, issue preclusion.\nIssue preclusion applies when: (1) a material fact issue decided in the earlier adjudication is identical to the one in the current proceeding; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the earlier adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or was in privity with a party in the earlier adjudication. Midland Hotel Corp. v. Director of Employment Security, 282 Ill. App. 3d 312, 315-16, 668 N.E.2d 82 (1996).\nAll requirements for the application of issue preclusion have been met here. First, the proceeding before the BFPC was judicial in nature. The BFPC not only held a hearing on the issue of whether Weber violated statutes and police department rules, but also issued written findings. Second, the issues decided before the BFPC are identical to the issues decided before the Board of Review \u2014 whether Weber improperly conducted background checks and sold the information. Third, the BFPC reached a final decision, which was later affirmed by both the circuit court and this court. Fourth, Weber, against whom issue preclusion is being asserted, was a party in the earlier adjudication and was represented by counsel. He is the real interested party in this case.\nWeber cannot now relitigate the issue of whether he engaged in misconduct that merited his discharge. The Board of Review incorrectly rejected the BFPC\u2019s findings. It improperly concluded that Weber was eligible for unemployment benefits.\nBecause of our finding on issue preclusion, we need not address Oak Park\u2019s contention that the Board of Review\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nCONCLUSION\nThe decision of the Board of Review is reversed. Weber is not eligible for unemployment benefits.\nReversed.\nCERDA and SOUTH, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack H. Tibbetts, Assistant Village Attorney, of Oak Park, for appellant.",
      "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and John E Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees Department of Employment Security, Board of Review, and Lynn Quigley Doherty."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 01 \u2014 3113\nOpinion filed June 28, 2002.\nRehearing denied July 15, 2002.\nJack H. Tibbetts, Assistant Village Attorney, of Oak Park, for appellant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and John E Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellees Department of Employment Security, Board of Review, and Lynn Quigley Doherty."
  },
  "file_name": "0141-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 162
}