Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commercial National Bank of Chicago v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1982No. 55457Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Underwood

I concur only in that portion of the majority’s opinion which holds unconstitutional the extraterritorial application of the ordinance. I do so not only because home rule units have no extraterritorial powers, but also because its extraterritorial application would pose severe due process problems. (See National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1967), 386 U.S. 753, 18 L. Ed. 2d 505, 87 S. Ct. 1389; Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1941), 312 U.S. 359, 85 L. Ed. 888, 61 S. Ct. 586; Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1941), 312 U.S. 373, 85 L. Ed. 897, 61 S. Ct. 593.) I would uphold the…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. People v. LewisIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
  3. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Belfield v. CoopIllinois Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API