Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bowden v. Flannery

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 25, 1998No. Gen. 11,098Published

1DissentMoNEAL, J.

I regret that I cannot agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The application for pension benefits in this case was not made by a policeman or by an officer appointed for temporary duty. The provisions of sections 1, 3 and 19 of the Pension Act (Pars. 892, 894 and 904f, Ch. 24, Ill. Rev. Stat., 1951) are not pertinent on this application. Here the widow of a member of the Kankakee police force made application for benefits under section 6 of the Act (Par. 897, Ch. 24, Ill. Rev. Stat., 1951). At its regular meeting the board correctly found: that applicant’s husband,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eddy v. People ex rel. WelterIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  2. People ex rel. Langan v. HansenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API