Page 779

              DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS PR
PR-51 (01/11)
HELD: The appellate court held that the Board of Review was a necessary party to an action for judicial review under the
Administrative Review Law and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It also stated that the Director of the Department of
Employment Security was not a necessary party and did not need to be served. The court denied the claimant’s request to amend
its complaint after the thirty five period had expired on the grounds that the proper filing of a complaint was a jurisdictional
requirement for review under the Administrative Review Law.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE Stanley v. IDES, 602 N.E. 2d 73 (1992)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial Review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to obtain 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. Although the claimant filed a complaint for administrative review within thirty five days,
the complaint did not name or serve the Board of Review. The circuit court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The
appellate court affirmed.
HELD: The appellate court held that the provisions of the Administrative Review Law require that a complaint for judicial review
name and serve those who were necessary parties to the administrative action. Because the Board of Review was the final decision
maker, it was a necessary party to any judicial action. The court also held that the claimant had failed to satisfy the good faith
exception given by the Administrative Review excusing noncompliance.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 440.10
DOCKET/DATE Strang v. IDOT, 564 N.E.2d 261 (1990)
AUTHORITY Administrative Review Law
TITLE Judicial Review of Board of Review decision
SUBTITLE Notice requirement to obtain 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. Although the claimant filed a complaint for administrative review within thirty five days,
the complaint only named and was served on the Department of Employment Security. The complaint did not name nor was it
served on the employer, the Board of Review, or the Director of the Department. The circuit court reversed the Board of Review’s
decision denying benefits. The appellate court reversed.
HELD: The appellate court held that the provisions of the Administrative Review Law require that a complaint for judicial review
name those who were necessary parties to the administrative action. The court applied the decision of Lockett v Chicago Police
Board, 549 N.E. 2d 1266 (1990), retroactively to hold that the Board of Review, the Director of the Department, and the employer
are necessary parties to the complaint. The court accordingly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not
address the additional question whether the claimant’s failure to serve the necessary parties within the thirty five day period would
also require dismissal of the complaint.