DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS PR
PR-50 (01/11)
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.5
DOCKET/DATE Village of Oak Park v. IDES, 772 N.E.2d 951 (2002)
AUTHORITY Administrative law
TITLE Res judicata
SUBTITLE Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The employer sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review. The Board found that the claimant was not ineligible
for benefits due to misconduct. The employer discharged the claimant for violating several statutes governing the conduct of
employees of the police department. The discharge was upheld at an administrative hearing and later affirmed by a court. The
claimant filed for benefits. Sometime during the administrative process before the Department of Employment Security and the
Board of Review, the employer introduced the transcript of the administrative hearing and its finding against the employee. The
employer contended that its administrative finding that the claimant was discharged for misconduct was binding upon the Board of
Review. The Board found that the employer had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was discharged
for misconduct under Section 602 of the Act. The circuit twice remanded the case to the Board for clarification and eventually
affirmed the Board’s decision. The appellate court reversed.
HELD: The appellate court held that a prior administrative adjudication that grants the parties the opportunity to be heard and the
right to cross examine witnesses is res judicata in subsequent administrative proceeding where three conditions are met: (1) the
material fact issue decided in the earlier adjudication is identical to the one in the current proceeding; (2) there is a final judgment
on the merits in the earlier adjudication; (3) the party against who the estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in
the earlier adjudication.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE Schwartz v. IDES, 647 N.E. 2d 146 (1996)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to secure judicial review
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review under the Administrative Review Law. The
Administrative Review Law requires that all parties to judicial review of administrative action be served within thirty five days of
the receipt of the administrative decision. action. Although the claimant filed a complaint for administrative review within thirty
five days, the summons concerning his complaint was not sent out to the claimant’s employer. The employer corporation was a
party to the administrative action. The claimant contended that the employer corporation was not a person required to be served
under the Administrative Review Law. The circuit court dismissed the claimant’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court
affirmed.
HELD: The appellate court stated that the employer corporation was a “person” required to be served under the Administrative
Review Law as a condition for obtaining judicial review of administration decisions.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE Shaw v. IDES, 612 N.E. 2d 919 (1993)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial Review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to obtain judicial review
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimants sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review denying benefits under the Administrative Review Law.
The Administrative Review Law requires that all parties to judicial review of administrative action be served within thirty five days
of the receipt of the administrative decision. Although the claimant filed a complaint for administrative review within thirty five
days, the complaint did not name either the Director of the Department of Employment Security or the Board of Review as a party
and did not serve them with a summons within the thirty five period. The claimants instead served the Department of Employment
Security. The circuit court dismissed the claimant’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. It also denied the employer’s request to amend its
complaint to name these parties. The appellate court dismissed the action due to lack of jurisdiction.
