Supreme Court of Illinois

In a putative class action suit brought to recover on behalf of the county for alleged overcharges in connection with the bond re-financing, dismissal of suit for lack of standing is affirmed where Code of Civil Procedure section 20-104(b), which purports to give private citizens standing to sue on behalf of a county for the recovery of fraudulently obtained public funds, is unconstitutional in circumstances in which the county is the real party in interest, because the exclusive powers of the State's Attorney to prosecute on behalf of the county have their origins in the state constitution and cannot be negated by statute.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/03/2005
• Published 06/03/2005

Judges

• Justice KILBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:

Court

• Supreme Court of Illinois

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Clinton A. Krislov, Jason P. Stiehl, Chicago, for appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Paul A. Castiglione, Patrick M. Blanchard, Julie Ann Sebastian, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee County of Cook., Eric H. Grush, Chicago (A. Robert Pietrzak, Nicholas P. Crowell, Martin B. Jackson, New York, New York, of counsel), of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, L.L.P., for appellee Bear Stearns & Co., Stanley J. Parzen, James C. Schroeder, of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, L.L.P., Chicago, for appellee Ernst & Young, L.L.P.