Search

The article provides information on the withdrawal of proposed rules by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission due to their failure to respond to the objection raised by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. It mention that the objection was based on non-compliance with statutory authority and legislative intent, and the Commission intends to further review the impacts of recent changes to the Sale Price Ad Act before resubmitting the rulemaking.

The article offers information on the court case People v. Adams related to drug abuse presented in the Illinois Supreme Court and informs that in its judgment the court recommended to give wide latitude to the prosecutors in evidences. It also discusses its implication on law practice and mentions that the ruling can act as a reminder for attorneys to be careful while objecting to improper argument.

The article discusses the Batson objections in line with an opponent's peremptory challenge in a recent Illinois case. According to the United States Supreme Court, purposefully excluding African-Americans from jury service denies due process. The article also discusses the elements of a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.

The article presents a notice of response to an objection made by Joint Committee on Administrative Rules regarding examination code of child health by Illinois Dept. of Public Health. It states the date on which proposed rulemaking was published in the journal as January 4, 2013 and date on which statement of objection was published as July 26, 2013. It mentions that rule making initiative is related to additional requirements that have a share in delayed response.

The article presents the "Statement of Objection to Proposed Rulemaking" issued by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) during its General Assembly in Illinois. It mentions that JCAR objected to the DOT's rulemaking about the accommodation of utilities on right-of-way. It further states that the agency's failure to respond in the span of 90 days will result to the withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking.