{
  "id": 3131798,
  "name": "ROBERT E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY POLICE & CORRECTIONS MERIT BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. Cook County Police & Corrections Merit Board",
  "decision_date": "1981-03-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 79-2423",
  "first_page": "1051",
  "last_page": "1053",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 Ill. App. 3d 1051"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "370 N.E.2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5456306
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "125-26"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/69/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2891312
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/44/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.E.2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill. 2d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2699886
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/4/0170-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 4521,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9727814072925818e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7395199488464386
    },
    "sha256": "80124fae46f650b957864cc570d6faefb2ba3e87ff893e4bd885de5814a9fb15",
    "simhash": "1:d22619efce19eda4",
    "word_count": 716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:48.439822+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HARTMAN, P. J., and STAMOS, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY POLICE & CORRECTIONS MERIT BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE PERLIN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Sheriff of Cook County filed a complaint with the Cook County Police and Corrections Merit Board (Merit Board) against plaintiff Robert Robinson, a deputy sheriff in the Cook County Police Department. The complaint sought discharge of plaintiff for alleged violations of certain rules and regulations of the Merit Board. After an administrative hearing the Merit Board entered a finding that Robinson was guilty of the rule violations charged and ordered him discharged. Plaintiff appealed the Merit Board\u2019s order to the circuit court pursuant to section 13 of the Administrative Review Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 276.) On review, the circuit court affirmed the Merit Board\u2019s finding as to plaintiff\u2019s misconduct, but it remanded the matter for reconsideration of the discharge sanction \u201cin light of [the circuit] court\u2019s opinion that said sanction is unduly harsh.\u201d The court further provided that its order would become final and appealable upon entry of the Merit Board\u2019s decision on remand. On remand the Merit Board affirmed its discharge order. Thereupon plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the appellate court from the order of the circuit court.\nPlaintiff raises four issues on appeal. First, whether the Merit Board\u2019s decision was invalid because it failed to include findings of fact. Second, whether the Merit Board\u2019s decision that plaintiff was guilty of the charges was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Both the remaining issues challenge the appropriateness of the discharge sanction.\nAlthough not raised by either party, on our own motion we raise the question of our jurisdiction of this case at this stage of the proceedings. (See McCann v. Continental Casualty Co. (1954), 4 Ill. 2d 170, 175, 122 N.E.2d 268.) Plaintiff\u2019s notice of appeal purports to request review of the order of the circuit court affirming the Merit Board\u2019s finding of rule violations. Simultaneously, however, plaintiff additionally seeks redress of the Merit Board\u2019s discharge ruling on remand. We find no authority for such a hybrid review. Rather, we believe plaintiff has omitted one crucial procedural step because plaintiff did not again present the Merit Board\u2019s final order to the circuit court.\nJurisdiction to review final administrative decisions is vested in the circuit courts. We believe that the present case is analogous to the situation arising in workmen compensation cases where the circuit court will remand the matter to the Industrial Commission to modify its prior order. That order of the circuit court is considered interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed. Rather the Industrial Commission must then act on the circuit court\u2019s order, and the circuit court confirm such action before the matter is appealable as a final order. Downey v. Industrial Com. (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 28, 29, 253 N.E.2d 371; Stockton v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 120, 125-26, 370 N.E.2d 548.\nSimilarly, the circuit court\u2019s order remanding the case to the Merit Board for reconsideration of the sanctions imposed was interlocutory and not appealable. The language of the circuit court\u2019s remand order purporting to make the order final and appealable is superfluous and does not alter the order\u2019s interlocutory status. We therefore do not consider the merits of plaintiff\u2019s contentions.\nHowever, principles of fundamental fairness dictate that we not deprive plaintiff of his right to have the issues herein, which have been prematurely tendered to this court, considered by the proper court first. We note that Supreme Court Rule 365(a) (73 Ill. 2d R. 365(a)) provides that \u201cthe taking of an appeal to either the Supreme Court or to the Appellate Court shall not be deemed a waiver of right to present any issue to the appropriate court \u201d \u00b0 Consequently, we believe that the cause should be transferred to the circuit court.\nThis appeal is dismissed and the case is transferred to the circuit court for review of the Merit Board\u2019s reaffirmation of the discharge of plaintiff.\nAppeal dismissed; cause transferred.\nHARTMAN, P. J., and STAMOS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE PERLIN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael H. Saken, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., and Susan Condon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY POLICE & CORRECTIONS MERIT BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 79-2423\nOpinion filed March 10, 1981.\nMichael H. Saken, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., and Susan Condon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "1051-01",
  "first_page_order": 1073,
  "last_page_order": 1075
}