Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker restates longtime opposition to California-style mandated zero emissions standards, saying he prefers ‘carrots over sticks’ at least for now
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. From the denial…
It is Hereby Ordered, that the City of Chicago’s Motion to Stay is denied for the following reasons:
On February 26, 2024 this Court denied the City of Chicago’s Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Matter of Right pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-408(a)(2). On that same day, the City of Chicago filed a Notice of Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court stating, “the City of Chicago will ask the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s judgment and orders and grant such other relief as it may be entitled to on this appeal.” (Notice of Appeal, p. 2, February 26, 2024).
This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a motion because “when the notice of appeal is filed, the appellate court’s jurisdiction attaches instanter, and the cause is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court.” Daley v Laurie, 106 Il. 2d 33, 37-38 (1985) (while taking notice that the defendant’s Notice of Appeal preempted the defendant’s motion for a new trial, causing the trial court to lose jurisdiction).
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule 305(d), the City of Chicago is not foreclosed from obtaining the necessary relief of a stay from the Appellate Court. Il. Sup. Ct. Rule 305(d).
The City of Chicago’s Motion to Stay is also denied because the City of Chicago as non-intervenor, and ultimately as a non-party under the facts of this case has no standing to seek a stay on the final merits.
Intervention. (a) Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted as of right to intervene in an action: … (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant will or may be bound by an order or judgment in the action
The suit was designed to prevent the Board of Elections from counting the votes. The City of Chicago does not count votes. So, the city wasn’t allowed to intervene.
…Adding… The plaintiffs’ response to the city’s motion to intervene referenced the statute above…
This Section sets three threshold requirements: (1) timely application; (2) inadequate representation of petitioner’s interest by the existing parties; and (3) a finding that the petitioner will or may be bound by an order in the case.
The Petition should be denied because Petitioner does not satisfy any of these three requirements for intervention. First the petition is not timely, and will, necessarily delay the agreed upon schedule for prompt resolution of the case. Second, the interest Petitioners claim to have is adequately represented by the Defendant, Board of Elections, which has filed exactly the same pleadings – a motion to dismiss and a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings – that Petitioner seeks leave to file. Third, Petitioner will not be “bound” by any judgment of this Court because the relief sought in the Complaint – that the referenda not appear on the ballot and that, if it does, any votes cast on the question not be counted - can only be provided by the Defendant Board. Petitioner plays no role in preparing ballots or counting votes.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 4:52 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker restates longtime opposition to California-style mandated zero emissions standards, saying he prefers ‘carrots over sticks’ at least for now
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Lt. Commander Jo Galloway strenuously objects.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:03 pm
An explanation. Seems like the judge might have heard the criticism about the absence of reasons for the prior decision.
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:04 pm
Who twisted Mary Richardson-Lowry‘s arm into intervening on this because there is no way she ever could’ve thought this had a chance in heck of happening. The incompetence that is this “movement” at CH is simply epic.
Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:17 pm
Another L, now time to read the Twitter explosion from DSA/CTU/UWF into their Orwellian Trump like theatrics.
Comment by Frida’s boss Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:28 pm
This judge is kooky. The circuit retains jurisdiction to grant a stay after an appeal is filed. In fact, you generally can’t ask the appellate court for a stay until you first ask the circuit court.
“The circuit court, however, retains jurisdiction after the notice of appeal is filed to determine matters collateral or incidental to the judgment. This court has specifically recognized that a stay of judgment is collateral to the judgment and does not affect or alter the issues on appeal.” General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 950 NE 2d 1136 – Ill. Supreme Court 2011
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:43 pm
Apparently the judge is as bad at knowing rules as she is at reading caselaw. “Except in cases provided for in paragraph (e) of this rule [regarding termination of parental rights], application for a stay ordinarily must be made in the first instance to the circuit court.” Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305(d).
Comment by Southside Markie Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 6:46 pm
So she either gives no explanation or glaringly erroneous ones lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 7:01 pm
This crew can’t do anything right…except pass meaningless resolutions that divide Chicago and guarantee big money organizes against them. Smdh
Comment by pragmatist Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 7:42 pm
It wasn’t a good explanation, but at least it was an explanation?
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 8:48 pm
Big swing and a miss by the City. They should have intervened BEFORE the judgment was entered.
The appeal on the City’s behalf is really an appeal to the order denying them leave to intervene. Until they are allowed to intervene, they are not a party to the case and have no standing to appeal the underlying judgment.
Comment by slippery slope Wednesday, Feb 28, 24 @ 10:31 am
“They should have intervened BEFORE the judgment was entered.”
They did. The City moved to intervene before the parties finished briefing on the Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Comment by Anon E Moose Wednesday, Feb 28, 24 @ 3:13 pm
Try to get the facts straight Slippery.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Feb 28, 24 @ 5:21 pm