Legal Opinion
Andruss v. City of Evanston
Illinois Supreme Court
Decided October 5, 1977No. 48832, 48841 consPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Dooley
The defendant city of Chicago, through an ordinance (Municipal Code of Chicago, secs. 113—23, 113—29), undertook to provide that it shall be unlawful to engage in the business of a real estate broker without having first been licensed by the State and then by the city of Chicago. An annual license fee for a city of Chicago license was $25.
The other defendants, the city of Evanston, the village of Park Forest, the village of Elmwood Park, and the village of Flossmoor, also enacted similar local laws pertaining to real estate brokers.
The question here is whether such licensing is the exclusive…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chicago Real Estate Board v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1967
- People Ex Rel. Dickey v. Southern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1959
- United Private Detective & Security Ass'n v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1976
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rawlings v. Department of Law EnforcementAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- City of Springfield v. UshmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Arquilla-DeHaan v. Village of Park ForestAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980