|
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Board of Elections committed reversible error by dismissing the cases below, without proceeding to open hearing, on the basis of lack of justifiable grounds.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Given that the rulings of the Board of Elections below constituted summary dismissals, made without factual findings by the Board, the standard of review in this appeal is de novo. In sum, the Board of Elections made no factual findings upon which to grant deference. See, Illinois Republican Party v. Illinois St. Bd. of Elections, 294 Ill. App. 3d 915, 924, 229 Ill. Dec. 233, 691 N.E.2d 169 (4th Dist. 1998). This particularly true in those cases in which the Respondents below presented no evidence at the closed preliminary hearing. See Eden Retirement Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 213 Ill. 2d 273, 821 N.E.2d 240, 290 Ill. Dec. 189 (2004), in which the Supreme Court recognized a de novo standard for judicial review of an administrative agencys application of a legal standard to uncontested facts.
Should this Court rule that findings were in fact made by the Board, the Boards decisions in the cases at bar involved application of a legal standard to given sets of facts, which calls for a "clearly erroneous" standard of review. City of Belvidere v. Illinois St. Labor Rel. Bd., 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205, 229 Ill. Dec. 522, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998); 2 Dist.,2005.
Jensen v. East Dundee Fire Protection Dist. Firefighters' Pension Fund Bd. of Trustees
362 Ill. App. 3d 197, 298 Ill. Dec. 347, 839 N.E.2d 670 (2nd Dist. 2005). A decision is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court, on the entire record, is ' "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Anderson v. Dept. of Prof. Regulation, 348 Ill. App. 3d 554, 560, 284 Ill. Dec. 575, 810 N.E.2d 228 (1st Dist. 2004).
|
