Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/25/88 Friendship Facilities, Inc v. Region 1b Human Rights

March 25, 1988

FRIENDSHIP FACILITIES, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

v.

REGION 1B HUMAN RIGHTS AUTHORITY, GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT

521 N.E.2d 578, 167 Ill. App. 3d 425, 118 Ill. Dec. 296 1988.IL.431

Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle County; the Hon. Richard R. Wilder, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER delivered the opinion of the court. WOMBACHER and SCOTT, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE STOUDER

The plaintiff, Friendship Facilities (Friendship), is a not-for-profit corporation which provides a sheltered workshop and residential care services to handicapped adults at its facility located in Ottawa, Illinois. Plaintiff, John Sullivan, was employed by Friendship as superintendent and held this position for 20 years.

Defendant, Guardianship and Advocacy Commission (Guardianship), is an executive agency of Illinois State government. The Region 1B Human Rights Authority is a division of the Commission established pursuant to the Guardianship and Advocacy Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 701 et seq.). The remaining individual defendants are current or former members of the Region 1B Human Rights Authority who participated in the investigation giving rise to this litigation.

The plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin public release of a report compiled by the defendants. The report pertains to an investigation of Friendship and John Sullivan by the defendants. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment; the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on count V of the plaintiffs' complaint, which sought a declaration that the Guardianship and Advocacy Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 701 et seq.) is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs' application for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (107 Ill. 2d R. 308) was granted.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that: (1) the Guardianship and Advocacy Act (the Act) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an executive agency of State government; (2) the Act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; and (3) the Act is unconstitutionally vague.

The controversy in the instant case concerns a grant of power to the Guardianship and Advocacy Commission and its regional branches pursuant to the Guardianship and Advocacy Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 701 et seq.). Pursuant to the Act, a regional authority is empowered to conduct investigations upon its own initiative if it has reason to believe that the rights of an eligible person have been violated. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 715.) The authority can then enter the premises of a service provider and conduct inspections. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 717.) The authority may conduct hearings (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 720), issue subpoenas, and then make public the findings of its investigation (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 726). The plaintiffs argue that there is no legislative guidance provided in the Act to determine who an eligible person is and what that person's rights are. The plaintiffs also argue that the Act does not provide for judicial or appellate review.

The two sections of the Act at issue in this case are as follows:

"Rights' includes but is not limited to all rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed by law, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the Constitution of the United States." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 702(h).)

"'Eligible persons' means individuals who have received, are receiving, have requested, or may be in need of mental health services . . .." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 702(g).)

The plaintiffs contend that both these provisions vest absolute discretion in the Commission and the regional human rights authority to determine and define both ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.