{ "id": 3240486, "name": "MICHAEL SCHOENBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Schoenbeck v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners", "decision_date": "1979-01-17", "docket_number": "No. 77-1494", "first_page": "366", "last_page": "374", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 366" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "189 N.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5358977 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5456767 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 N.E.2d 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 1072", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2960902 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/34/1072-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 N.E.2d 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2958256 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/59/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 N.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 1018", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2713919 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/1018-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 N.E.2d 1160", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Ill. App. 3d 486", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5619984 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/62/0486-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 N.E.2d 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2795345 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/32/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 1198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3410230 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/55/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 N.E.2d 1166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Ill. App. 3d 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5620689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/62/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 N.E.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2833631 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 N.E.2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2932193, 2926933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0460-02", "/ill-app-3d/11/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 N.E.2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2757677 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/8/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 N.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. App. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5213427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/26/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N.E.2d 864", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "407 Ill. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2640772 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/407/0588-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 860, "char_count": 21120, "ocr_confidence": 0.905, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.887744607604377e-07, "percentile": 0.7285625532608272 }, "sha256": "d83f06e7750602eeaf06747877034894df0af694f836c4f9000f28ee55287974", "simhash": "1:0aaf19d436fbddd9", "word_count": 3381 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:15.332188+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MICHAEL SCHOENBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Miss JUSTICE McGILLICUDDY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Michael Schoenbeck, a member of the Police Department of the Village of River Forest, Illinois, filed a complaint for administrative review of the action of the defendant Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of River Forest (the Board) which found him guilty of violating department rules and discharging him from the department. The circuit court reversed the decision of the Board holding that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Board has appealed from that order.\nOn January 14, 1977, the chief of police filed numerous charges against the plaintiff with the Board; the charges involved his personal relationship with Sarah Lee Losurdo, a high school resident of River Forest, and a charge that he assisted Losurdo in obtaining a false firearm owner\u2019s identification card from the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement. Schoenbeck and Losurdo presented conflicting testimony concerning the exact nature of their relationship.\nSchoenbeck, married and the father of two teenage sons, testified that he first met Losurdo approximately three to four years before the hearing, when she was in grammar school. He characterized their relationship as that of \u201can older brother to a younger sister.\u201d He denied that he had formally dated Losurdo but admitted that she had been to his home on several occasions in the presence of his wife and sons. Losurdo, on the other hand, identified herself as Schoenbeck\u2019s girl friend and testified that they had dated approximately 150 times. She stated that she had received gifts from Schoenbeck including a lighter engraved with his initials for Valentine\u2019s Day 1976 and a diamond ring in June 1976.\nLosurdo\u2019s parents and her three brothers also testified before the Board. Her mother declared that the plaintiff and her daughter usually dated on Tuesday evenings, and that Losurdo had received gifts from him. Her father testified that in August of 1976 he confronted Schoenbeck concerning his marital status and forbade him from seeing his daughter. The plaintiff\u2019s alleged response was \u201cEverybody makes a mistake.\u201d Michael Losurdo testified that at his 16th birthday party, he and his sister introduced Schoenbeck as \u201cSarah Lee\u2019s boy friend,\u201d and that Losurdo and Schoenbeck \u201cwere holding hands and they hugged each other.\u201d Michael also testified that the plaintiff had denied that he was married but that he was \u201cliving with this lady because it is a law that to be a River Forest Policeman, you have to be married.\u201d He also claimed that the plaintiff admitted purchasing the engagement ring worn by Losurdo.\nSchoenbeck\u2019s wife testified on behalf of her husband. She characterized her relationship with Losurdo as that of a friend and revealed that Losurdo occasionally visited her when Schoenbeck was not present. She stated that the engraved cigarette lighter was a gift from her husband and herself. She further said she would have noticed the absence of her husband every Tuesday evening.\nSergeant Harold Blesy described an incident that occurred in the River Forest police station on December 31, 1976. It appears that this incident precipitated the filing of the charges against Schoenbeck. Blesy testified that shortly before midnight, the plaintiff was informed that he had a visitor, Losurdo, in the lobby of the station. Approximately 15 minutes later, Blesy observed Schoenbeck and Losurdo\u2019s brother Phillip shouting in the hallway. Subsequently, he observed Phillip attempting to drag his sister out of the station. Schoenbeck and Blesy approached Phillip, and Schoenbeck and Phillip resumed their argument regarding Schoenbeck\u2019s interference in the Losurdo family\u2019s problems. Schoenbeck and Phillip then conferred in private and shortly thereafter Phillip apologized to the other officers present for the disturbance and left the station. Upon learning that Losurdo was 18 years of age, Blesy instructed Schoenbeck to get her out of the station. Schoenbeck\u2019s written report concerning the evening indicated that Losurdo had argued with her mother and had been asked to leave the home.\nLosurdo\u2019s father testified that at approximately 1 a.m., after receiving a call from Schoenbeck, he picked his daughter up at the station and took her home. Thereafter, Losurdo resumed her argument with her mother, again left the home and returned to the police station. Around 4 a.m. Blesy re-entered the station and voiced concern that Losurdo was still present. He informed Schoenbeck that he definitely wanted Losurdo out of the station by 6 a.m. The plaintiff testified that he called a cab company to transport Losurdo to a motel, and, following the directions of Blesy,\" prepared a written report regarding the incident.\nAt 2 p.m. that afternoon Lieutenant Richard Samuel visited the Losurdo residence after conferring with the chief of police regarding a complaint that the plaintiff was allegedly involved in the family\u2019s dispute. He testified that he visited two motels and contacted a cab company in an attempt to locate Losurdo. Subsequently, he phoned Schoenbeck at approximately 6 p.m. to inquire as to what cab company he had called for Losurdo and what was the destination of the cab. At 6:30 p.m. Schoenbeck called the station to determine if Samuel had located Losurdo.\nAt 7:30 p.m. Losurdo arrived at the Schoenbeck home to attend a New Year\u2019s Eve party to which she had been invited by Schoenbeck\u2019s wife. The plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of the invitation to Losurdo. Losurdo testified that she left the party at 2 a.m. At no time did the plaintiff inform any member of the police department or the Losurdo family of Losurdo\u2019s presence at his party.\nSamuel continued his investigation regarding the whereabouts of Losurdo. On January 2, 1977, Mr. and Mrs. Losurdo gave statements to the chief of police and Samuel concerning the relationship between Schoenbeck and Losurdo and blamed the plaintiff for their daughter\u2019s disappearance. The chief of police prepared and delivered a letter to Schoenbeck advising him of the possibility of formal charges against him as a result of his personal association with Losurdo. On January 3 at 8:40 p.m. Losurdo\u2019s mother telephoned Samuel to inform him that her daughter had returned home.\nSchoenbeck admitted that he asked Sergeant George Straugh to notarize a blank application for a firearm owner\u2019s identification card. He insisted, however, that the application was intended for Losurdo\u2019s brother Michael and that in the presence of his wife he gave the blank application to Losurdo for her brother. Schoenbeck\u2019s wife supported his testimony. The card which was admitted into evidence contained Losurdo\u2019s picture, the name \u201cSara Lee Schoenbeck\u201d and a birthdate of September 11,1954. Losurdo was bom on September 11, 1958.\nLosurdo, however, testified that Schoenbeck assisted her in preparing the application for the identification card so that if she was carded with Schoenbeck it would appear that she was his wife. She stated that Schoenbeck placed her photograph upon the application and took the completed application with him. Her brother Anthony, age 13, testified that he observed Schoenbeck affixing the picture to the application in the Losurdo home. He stated:\n\u201cWhen I walked in, I asked them what they were doing. And he told me that he was getting Sarah Lee a fake I.D. And he had a form and was going to say that Sarah Schoenbeck was his wife; twenty-two was going to be her age.\u201d\nAt the hearing Schoenbeck\u2019s attorney produced a notarized statement signed by Losurdo addressed to the police board in which she stated that her brother had asked Schoenbeck to obtain the application for the firearm owner\u2019s identification card, that she received the application from Schoenbeck in the presence of his family, and that she completed the application herself. She also denied the accusations concerning a romantic involvement with Schoenbeck and stated \u201cMike and Pat have become a brother and sister to me, which I never had.\u201d At the hearing Losurdo stated that the contents of her statement were false, and that her testimony before the Board was the truth. She also revealed that she was consulting a psychologist concerning the situation. On April 4,1977, the Board issued its findings and decision. The Board determined that Schoenbeck had violated Rules 27A and GG of the River Forest Police Department.\nRule 27A provides:\n\u201cConduct: No member of this department shall conduct themselves in a disorderly or any other manner as to bring discredit upon this department or themselves. Members in their conduct and deportment shall be quiet, civil, and orderly and shall at all times be attentive and serious in the discharge of their duties, controlling their tempers and exercising the utmost patience and discretion. They must at all times refrain from using violent, profane and insolent language, but when required must act with sufficient force to perform their duty. They shall be civil and respectful toward each other and the general public.\u201d\nRule GG provides:\n\u201cFalse Reports: No member of this department shall make a misstatement or make a false report.\u201d\nIn addition, the Board reached the following conclusions:\n(1) That for a period of approximately 14 months preceding January 1, 1977, Schoenbeck and Sarah Lee Losurdo had a personal relationship.\n(2) That Schoenbeck represented himself to the family of Losurdo as a single man.\n(3) That Schoenbeck continued to see and talk to Losurdo after her father had forbidden him to have any further relationships with her.\n(4) That the relationship between Schoenbeck and Losurdo was responsible for an altercation which occurred at the River Forest Police Station on December 31, 1976, involving various members of the Losurdo family.\n(5) That Schoenbeck obtained a cab for Losurdo to take her from the police station to a motel and failed to inform fully his superior officers or the police department of his actions.\n(6) That Schoenbeck knew the whereabouts of Losurdo and failed to inform Lieutenant Samuel or the Losurdo family.\n(7) That Schoenbeck induced a member of the police department to notarize a blank application for an Illinois department of law enforcement firearm owner\u2019s identification card.\n(8) That Schoenbeck aided and assisted Losurdo in filling in the information on the notarized blank application knowing that the information was false.\nThe Board ordered Schoenbeck discharged from the police department. The circuit court, ruling on Schoenbeck\u2019s complaint for administrative review, reversed the decision holding that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. On appeal, the issues presented for review by the Board are as follows:\n(1) Whether the plaintiff\u2019s action for administrative review is fatally defective for failure to join as defendants all persons who were parties of record to the proceedings before the Board.\n(2) Whether the decision of the Board discharging Schoenbeck was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.\n(3) Whether Schoenbeck\u2019s conduct constituted cause for discharge from the police department.\nI\nSection 8 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 271) provides:\n\u201cIn any action to review any final decision of an administrative agency, the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made defendants.\u201d\nThis requirement is mandatory and specific and admits of no modification. (Winston v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1950), 407 Ill. 588, 95 N.E.2d 864; Stirniman v. County Board of School Trustees (1960), 26 Ill. App. 2d 245, 167 N.E.2d 829.) The Board contends that Schoenbeck did not meet this jurisdictional requirement by failing to name as defendants the chief of police, members of the Losurdo family and other witnesses who testified at the hearing.\nWe do not feel that this section of the Act concerning \u201cparties of record\u201d mandates that all witnesses who appear before an administrative agency must be named as defendants in a subsequent action for administrative review. Cases interpreting this provision have concerned parties who had a substantial interest in the outcome of the agency\u2019s decision. Winston v. Zoning Board of Appeals involved a failure to name persons who were parties of record to the proceeding before the zoning board and who had supported a petition for variation which was the subject of review. Stirniman v. County Board of School Trustees dealt with the annexation of land from one school district to another. The educational interests of the children of the parties who testified at the hearing concerning the annexation would have been directly affected by the outcome of the decision of the reviewing court. In O\u2019Hare International Bank v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 764, 291 N.E.2d 349, the court held that participants at a hearing involving the zoning of real estate were necessary defendants since they lived in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff; otherwise, they would be deprived of the opportunity to protect their interest \u2014 the monetary value of their homes and the aesthetic level of their neighborhood \u2014 in court. In the present case the witnesses who appeared before the police board had no substantial interest in the Board\u2019s decision; therefore, it was unnecessary to name every witness as a defendant.\nWe also find that the failure to name Albert Berry, the chief of police, as a defendant did not render the plaintiff\u2019s complaint fatally defective. Although the chief of police brought the charges against Schoenbeck before the Board, he had no personal interest in the outcome of the matter. His professional interest as head of the police department in the review of the Board\u2019s decision was identical to the interest of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, his employer. In Rizzo v. Board of Fire Police Commissioners (1973), 11 Ill. App. 3d 460, 297 N.E.2d 247, the court held that in an action under the Administrative Review Act to review a policeman\u2019s discharge, the Board was the proper defendant.\nII\nThe second issue is whether the decision of the Board to discharge Schoenbeck was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. We find it necessary to consider only whether the manifest weight of the evidence supported the Board\u2019s finding that Schoenbeck induced a member of the police department to notarize a blank application for an Illinois department of law enforcement owner\u2019s identification card and aided and assisted Losurdo in completing the notarized blank application, knowing that the information entered thereon was false. If this finding is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, it is sufficient to justify the Board\u2019s dismissal of Schoenbeck from the police department.\nSection 11 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 274) provides that the findings and conclusions of the administrative agency on the questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie true and correct. On administrative review, the court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence; its function is solely to ascertain whether the agency\u2019s decisions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (DeGrazio v. Civil Service Com. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 482, 202 N.E.2d 522; Tinner v. Police Board (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 204, 378 N.E.2d 1166.) The fact that the record reveals conflicting testimony alone is not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the decision of the agency. (Ranquist v. Stackler (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 545, 370 N.E.2d 1198.) It is the responsibility of the administrative agency to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. (Crowell v. Police Board (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 552, 336 N.E.2d 573.) In order to find that a decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must conclude that all reasonable and unbiased persons acting within the limits prescribed by law and drawing all inferences in support of the finding, would agree that the finding is erroneous. Taylor v. Police Board (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 486, 378 N.E.2d 1160; Daniels v. Police Board (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 349 N.E.2d 504.\nAt the hearing the plaintiff testified that he had a member of the police department notarize the blank application which he gave to Losurdo. The record reveals conflicting evidence concerning Schoenbeck\u2019s involvement in the preparation of the application. Both the plaintiff and his wife testified that the blank application was given to Losurdo with instructions to deliver it to her brother Michael. Losurdo testified that Schoenbeck assisted her in completing the application and that he placed her photograph on the application. Schoenbeck\u2019s attorney, however, impeached Losurdo\u2019s testimony with her notarized statement which supported the plaintiff\u2019s version of the incident. Anthony Losurdo testified that he observed Schoenbeck placing his sister\u2019s picture upon the application, and that he admitted that he was \u201cgetting Sarah Lee a fake I.D.\u201d\nWe find that the Board\u2019s conclusion that Schoenbeck gave Losurdo a notarized blank application and assisted her in obtaining the identification card is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. All the testimony concerning the identification card was presented by interested parties to the hearing. It was the Board\u2019s obligation to weigh the conflicting testimony, and it appears that the Board chose to believe Anthony Losurdo\u2019s testimony rather than the testimony of the Schoenbecks. As we cannot say that all reasonable persons would find this conclusion erroneous, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the police board. Daniels.\nWe also find that the manifest weight of the evidence supports the Board\u2019s finding that Schoenbeck violated Rule 27A of the River Forest Police Department. When Schoenbeck, a member of the department, influenced another member to notarize a blank application and then assisted Losurdo to fill in the form with false information as to her name and age with the purpose that it would appear that the information was given under oath in order to comply with the requirements of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 83\u20144(a)(2)(i)), he brought discredit upon the department and himself. Rule 27A.\nSchoenbeck relies on Kerr v. Police Board (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 140, 319 N.E.2d 478, for the proposition that the Illinois Supreme Court will permit the reviewing court to weigh contradictory evidence in determining whether a decision is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. In Kerr, however, the court noted that the police board itself disbelieved part of the testimony of its own witnesses and considered this factor in applying the manifest weight test. The court did not weigh the evidence; it determined that the record did not support the agency\u2019s determination and therefore the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nIll\nThe final issue for review is whether Schoenbeck\u2019s conduct constituted cause for discharge from the police department. No policeman may be discharged except for cause. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, par. 10 \u20142.1\u201417.) This court has defined cause as some substantial shortcoming which renders the employee\u2019s continuance in office in some way detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service and which the law and sound public opinion recognize as good reason for his no longer holding his position. (Caliendo v. Goodrich (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 340 N.E.2d 560; see also Kreiser v. Police Board (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 27, 370 N.E.2d 511.) The Board\u2019s determination of cause cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. Fantozzi v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 357, 189 N.E.2d 275.\nThe Board found that Schoenbeck induced another member of the police department to notarize a blank application for a firearms identification card, that he assisted Losurdo in filling out the form with false information and that by these actions brought discredit upon the department and himself. The Board\u2019s determination that this conduct of the plaintiff justified his dismissal from the department is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. (Fantozzi.) Certainly, such action can be categorized as a substantial shortcoming which renders the continuance of the officer in his office detrimental to the discipline or efficiency of the service. (Caliendo.) The termination of the plaintiff\u2019s employment was warranted.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County is reversed.\nReversed.\nSIMON, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Miss JUSTICE McGILLICUDDY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Charles L. Michod, Peter A. Felice, and Robert E. Grundin, all of Chicago, for appellant.", "John J. Muldoon, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MICHAEL SCHOENBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 77-1494\nOpinion filed January 17, 1979.\nRehearing denied April 12, 1979.\nCharles L. Michod, Peter A. Felice, and Robert E. Grundin, all of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn J. Muldoon, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0366-01", "first_page_order": 388, "last_page_order": 396 }