Illinois Supreme Court
Borchers' conviction reversed
The 1975 theft and official misconduct
conviction of former state Rep. Webber
Borchers (R., Decatur) was overturned by
the Illinois Supreme Court September 20.
Borchers, 71, immediately announced he
would run again for his former seat in the
Illinois House, a seat he said he was "cheated
out of by his unjust felony conviction.
Borchers, a passionate patriot and folksy philosopher, was charged with misusing expense-account vouchers in order to conduct an investigation into campus unrest at Illinois state universities in 1969. He was first acquitted in a U.S. District Court, only to be found guilty a few months later in a state circuit court in Sangamon County. (For details of both trials see April 1976 article by Tom Laue, and Rep. Borchers' reply in October 1976 Illinois Issues.) But Borchers appealed the second trial, calling it illegal under the doctrine of "collateral estoppel" — which bars retrial of a decided question.
"We consider that the defendant's conten- tion is correct," said the court opinion (Illinois v. Borchers, Docket No. 48666). "We have reviewed the records in the Federal and State trials, and they are practically alike so far as the evidence presented is concerned,'" the court said.
Borchers had never denied that he turned in $1,650 worth of legislative expense vouchers for secretarial services never performed. However, he claimed that he had no intent to defraud the state when he used the money to hire an independent informant to spy on campus dissidents.
"The controlling fact or question in both prosecutions was whether or not the defen- dant had intent to commit a fraud," Chief Justice Daniel Ward said in the opinion. "The verdict of acquittal in the federal prosecution resolved this factual question in favor of the defendant."
Leasehold university land
Despite Northwestern University's tax
exempt status as an educational institution.
the Illinois Supreme Court ruled September
20 in a 4-2 decision that Nabisco, Inc.. and
Pepsi-Cola General Bottler's, Inc., must pay
taxes on their leasehold interest of property owned by the university.
The two firms argued in Nabisco v. Korzen that since Northwestern's lease revenue is used for educational purposes, the tax assessment violates the provisions of Northwestern's charter guaranteed by the state of Illinois in 1855. Further, the firms maintained that taxation "against lessees of tax-exempt property without a similar application against lessees of non-exempt property is arbitrary and discriminatory."
But Cook County invoked the Revenue Act of l939 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, Ch. 120, sec. 507), which provides that when tax-exempt land is leased to someone whose property is not exempt, the leased property is con- sidered taxable and the responsibility of the lessee.
Apparently the court's ruling did not come as a total surprise to Northwestern and the two firms. The lease agreement for Nabisco provided for deduction of possible real estate taxes from its rental payments; and Pepsi-Cola made lease payments ex- pressly listed as "'tax-lieu rent.'" Nabisco claimed the amount of money lost to Northwestern University as a result of the court's rulings on the two cases may be $1 million or more.
Justice Robert Underwood wrote in his dissenting opinion that the ruling violates the original charter guaranteed by the state of Illinois in 1848, which exempts North- western University from taxes on all proper- ty, including that which is leased with the income used for educational purposes. Justice Howard Ryan joined in the dissent.
Limit suits against CTA
A state law requiring that personal injury suits
against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)
must be filed within one year of the time the injury
happened was upheld by the state Supreme Court.
The opinion reversed a circuit court decision call-
ing the tort immunity provisions of the Metropoli-
tan Transit Authority Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, Ch.
Ill 2/3, sec. 341) unconstitutional because they
conflict with the filing provisions for suits against
other local governmental units. "The CTA has
been treated as a distinct entity with unique
problems since its creation over 30 years ago, and
we remain unpersuaded that this classification is
arbitrary or irrational," said the opinion written
by Justice Robert Underwood in a review of
Wheeler v. Chicago Transit Authority, and six
other suits against CTA.
Chicago ordinance on branch banking
In People ex rel. v. Chicago the Illinois
Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance which
allowed a form of branch banking in Chicago is
void under terms of the 1970 Illinois Constitution.
The court's September 20 decision said that
"branch banking is a matter of concern primarily
to the State as a whole, and that unitary control of
it should rest with the General Assembly."
Adoption process
The Illinois Supreme Court denied a woman's
petition to regain custody of her son whom she had given up for adoption in 1975. She contended
that the adoption was invalid since it occurred as a result of "fraud and duress" by the adoption
agency Baby Fold, Inc. The court ruled in
Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. that "clear and convincing evidence" that the agency acted im-
properly had not been furnished by the mother,
Linda Fay Regenold. Although the court said it
recognized "the absolute hopelessness of the picture" which induced the woman to sign the
adoption papers, it ruled that the adoption was
proper since no fraud or duress had been proven.
Earlier a circuit court had ruled that Baby Fold
acted with "unseemly haste" in taking the child
from the mother. Two justices dissented from the
majority opinion, but issued no written dissent,
while a third took no part in the consideration or
decision of the case.
Fireman's pensions
The Illinois Pension Code(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975,
ch. 1081/2, sec. 6-213) provision which disallows
garnishment orders on pensions and annuities
paid under the Fireman's Annuity and Benefit
Fund is constitutional. The Illinois Supreme
Court ruled that section 6-213 of the pension code
does not violate the equal protection clauses of the
federal or state constitutions even though
"recipients of private pensions are not similarly
immune from garnishment actions." "We find
numerous distinctions between these two classes
which could reasonably justify the granting of
wage deduction immunity only to former public
employees," the court decision said. Moreover the
court ruled that the state Constitution's prohibi-
tion against special legislation (Art. IV, sec. 13) is
not violated by section 6-213 of the pension code.
"The prohibition against special legislation does
not mean that a statute must affect everyone in the
same way. It simply means that the law shall
operate uniformly throughout the State and on all
persons in like conditions," the court ruled.
Food stamp prices
The method used by the Illinois Department of
Public Aid (IDPA) for calculating food stamp
prices was upheld by a September 20 Illinois State
Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. The Department
of Public Aid.
Although participants in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) are automatically eligible to receive food stamps, the price for food stamps is based on each household's net income derived either from employment, AFDC or both. Under AFDC the "net income" figure used to determine how much assistance each household is eligible for allows exemptions on earned income. The (IDPA, in calculating food stamp prices, considers income without such exemption.
Two recipients, whose inability to exempt monthly earned income resulted in an increase in the price of food stamps, claimed that "the rise in food stamp prices has the effect of decreasing AFDC aid." This, they said violates section 10(d) of the Food Stamp Act, which provides that participating states cannot decrease other similar aid extended to a person who also receives food stamp assistance. IDPA was also charged with depriving the two recipients of their right to appeal the change.
The court, reversing a prior judgment by the circuit court of Vermilion County, emphasized that"the purpose of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is to alleviate the hunger and malnutrition of low- income households with limited food purchasing power." Allowing exemptions to AFDC house- holds and not to other low-income households discriminates against the latter, said the court. As to the charge that the IDPA deprived the two recipients of the right to review the decision: to increase the price of the food stamps, the court pointed out that common-law provisions for reviewing such administrative changes are available.ž
November 1977 / Illinois Issues / 29